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 moreThis judgment decided a batch of ten connected appeals (including Civil Appeal No. 3086/2016, State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma), all raising the same legal question. Life convicts who had served over 14 years in prison argued that a Rajasthan rule (Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006) was invalid because it additionally required them to first earn a minimum of 4 years' remission before their cases for premature release could even be considered: a condition they said effectively pushed the real waiting period to around 18 years and conflicted with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Rajasthan High Court had struck down this rule, both for not being properly placed before the State Legislature and for being inconsistent with Section 433-A. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the requirement to "lay" rules before the State Legislature "as soon as may be" was merely directory, not mandatory, since the law prescribed no time limit or penalty for delay, so failure to do so promptly did not invalidate the rule. On the substantive question, the Court held that remission of a life sentence is not a matter of right but a matter of State policy, and Section 433-A only sets a minimum (14 years) before which release cannot happen at all: it does not stop the State from requiring convicts to satisfy further conditions, like earning additional remission, before even being considered for premature release. The Court therefore held Rule 8(2)(i) valid, set aside the High Court's judgment, and allowed all the connected appeals, including the one concerning Mukesh Sharma.
A life sentence in India legally means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life unless the government grants remission as a matter of policy: convicts have no automatic right to release or even to consideration for release merely because they have served the statutory minimum of 14 years; States can impose additional, stricter conditions.
