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 respondent, Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid, was arrested at Delhi airport in 2016 while allegedly attempting to travel to Afghanistan with her child to join her husband, who had left India with several others to join the terrorist organisation ISIS. She was tried before the Special Court for NIA cases in Ernakulam and convicted on five counts, including criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), waging war against a friendly Asiatic power (Section 125 IPC), and multiple offences under the UAPA relating to membership of, support for, and fundraising for a terrorist organisation. The Kerala High Court, on appeal, acquitted her of the Section 125 IPC and two UAPA charges while upholding her conviction under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA, but reduced her sentence on sympathetic grounds, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by both the Union of India and the respondent.
The Supreme Court held that evidence showing she had attended ideological classes propagating ISIS's cause, was found with ISIS-related material (including speeches and a guide to the "Islamic State") at the time of her arrest, and was attempting to travel to join her husband abroad, was sufficient to establish the mens rea required for conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and membership/support of a terrorist organisation (Section 38 UAPA): her own appeal against conviction on these counts was dismissed. On the Union's appeal, the Court agreed with the High Court that the evidence did not establish the distinct elements required for Section 125 IPC (waging war) or Sections 39/40 UAPA (specific support/fund-raising for terrorism), so those acquittals stood, though the Court clarified that the High Court was wrong to treat Section 39 as "superfluous" once Section 38 applied, since the two provisions cover different conduct. However, the Court found no justification for the High Court's sympathy-based reduction of sentence, holding the intensity of her involvement left no room for leniency, and restored the original, higher sentence imposed by the trial court for the Section 120B IPC and Section 38 UAPA convictions.
Appellate courts cannot reduce a sentence merely out of sympathy where the evidence shows active, sustained involvement in the underlying offence; and different criminal provisions aimed at different aspects of the same broader conduct (e.g., membership versus active support of a terrorist organisation) are not interchangeable or mutually exclusive just because one applies.
