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 appellant was convicted under Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for alleged possession of 10 kg of opium, sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and a fine, with the conviction upheld by the High Court. The appellant argued he was falsely implicated, that no independent witness from the locality was associated with the search despite it being a residential area, and that the prosecution failed to establish that the sample tested in the laboratory was the same as what was seized from him.
The Supreme Court found it implausible that police could not find even one independent witness in a rural residential locality, and noted there was no recovery memo prepared at the time of search as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Relying on its earlier rulings in Vijay Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the prosecution must prove a clear, unbroken link between the sample seized and the sample tested, and that mere production of a lab report is not enough if that chain is not proven. Since the identity of the sample was not conclusively established, the Court held the conviction unsustainable.
In narcotics cases, a conviction cannot stand on a lab report alone: the prosecution must prove, step by step, that the exact substance tested in the lab is the same substance actually seized from the accused; gaps in this chain of evidence can be fatal to the prosecution's case.
