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 accused and the deceased, Farida, were neighbours. On 19 April 2004, the accused allegedly poured kerosene on Farida and set her on fire, after which Farida died. The trial court convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 IPC based on a dying declaration recorded by a Tehsildar (Executive Magistrate) and sentenced her to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted her, pointing to an inconsistency between that dying declaration and an earlier one recorded by a doctor, in which the deceased had named both the accused and her mother as the culprits. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
The Supreme Court examined the two dying declarations and agreed that there was a genuine inconsistency between them regarding who exactly set the deceased on fire. The Court held that where two reasonable views of the evidence are possible and the High Court has adopted one plausible view (benefit of the doubt to the accused), the Supreme Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because another view was also possible. Finding no substantial ground to disturb the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, finally affirming the acquittal.
When a dying declaration is the key piece of evidence, any inconsistency between multiple such declarations can create reasonable doubt, and once an appellate court has taken a plausible view in favour of acquittal based on that doubt, a higher court will generally not interfere simply because a different view was also possible.
