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 moreDuring a village Panchayat meeting called to settle a dispute between the respondent's nephew-in-law and the respondent (Faquirey), the complainant's son, Rakesh, arrived at the scene. The respondent believed Rakesh had been visiting his house with "an evil eye" on his wife, declared he would kill him, and shot Rakesh dead with a pistol when he tried to flee. The Trial Court convicted the respondent of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, but the High Court reduced this to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) with 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, holding that the sight of Rakesh amounted to grave and sudden provocation. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court to restore the murder conviction.
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's conviction under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment. It held that the First Proviso to Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC excludes the "grave and sudden provocation" defence where the provocation is voluntarily sought or provoked by the offender himself as an excuse for violence. Here, there was no overt act by the deceased that could amount to provocation: the respondent's suspicion about his wife was his own pre-existing grudge, not something triggered suddenly by the victim's conduct at the scene. The Court held the High Court had erred by converting the conviction without the respondent even having contested the facts on merit, and directed the respondent (who had already served about 10 years) to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his life sentence.
The "sudden and grave provocation" defence to a murder charge is not available where the supposed provocation is really the offender's own pre-existing grudge or suspicion rather than something the victim actually did at the time: courts must find an actual provoking act by the victim, not merely the accused's state of mind.
