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 moreVinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta were two of four men convicted and sentenced to death for the 2012 gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman ("Nirbhaya") in Delhi. Their criminal appeals against the death sentence had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated 5 May 2017. They filed review petitions seeking to reopen that decision, raising fresh arguments including a plea to abolish the death penalty and renewed claims that they were juveniles at the time of the offence.
The Court held that a review petition is not a second opportunity to re-argue a case already fully heard and decided: here the original appeals had been argued over roughly 38 days with every point considered. On juvenility, the Court noted the trial court had already examined and rejected both petitioners' juvenility claims based on the evidence on record, and no new material was shown that would justify revisiting those findings. Forensic and eyewitness evidence establishing Vinay Sharma's presence at the crime scene, and rejection of his alibi, had already been dealt with in the main judgment. Finding no new ground warranting review, the Court dismissed both review petitions, upholding the death sentences.
A review petition in the Supreme Court is confined to narrow grounds (such as a clear error apparent on the record): it cannot be used to re-litigate issues, like factual findings on juvenility, that were already fully argued and decided in the original appeal.
