Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellants, Swapan Kumar Jha, his cousin, and a third accomplice, kidnapped Swapan's 19-year-old student cousin Sumit Kumar Ojha for ransom in 2008, after an earlier failed attempt to kidnap Sumit's brother. Sumit was drugged, murdered by strangulation, and his body was buried in a graveyard; a ransom call demanding Rs. 20 lakhs was made to the family. The trial court convicted all three, sentencing Swapan Kumar to death and the other two to life imprisonment, and the Jharkhand High Court confirmed these convictions and sentences. Swapan Kumar and the other two accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three appellants, finding an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence (last-seen testimony, call records, recovery of the body based on the confession) proving guilt beyond doubt. However, on sentencing, the Court held that while Swapan Kumar's betrayal of a family member and premeditation were serious aggravating factors, the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold for the death penalty under the Bachan Singh standard, given mitigating factors such as his young age and potential for reform. The Court therefore commuted Swapan Kumar's death sentence to life imprisonment, but, invoking the Swamy Shraddananda/Union of India v. V. Sriharan line of authority, restricted his right to seek remission for a mandatory minimum of 25 years, given his comparatively greater culpability as the mastermind. The convictions and life sentences of the other two co-accused were left undisturbed.
Even in grave, premeditated crimes, courts must weigh mitigating factors such as youth and capacity for reform before imposing the death penalty, which remains the exception rather than the rule; courts can instead impose a fixed minimum term without remission as a middle path between death and ordinary life imprisonment.
