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 moreIn 1992, a violent incident in a Gujarat village left 3 people dead and 5 injured, leading to a trial of 15 (later more) accused persons. The Sessions Court convicted only 4 of the accused and acquitted the rest; subsequent appeals and a State appeal against the acquittals were all clubbed and decided by a single Gujarat High Court judgment in 2004, which the complainant and the State then brought to the Supreme Court. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court in 2018, 26 years after the crime, all convicts had already served their sentences and some accused had died.
The Supreme Court found the original trial court's judgment seriously deficient: charges had never been properly framed as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, there was no clear finding on the existence of an "unlawful assembly," no identification of which accused caused which specific death or injury, and the evidence (including post-mortem findings) was poorly analysed. Normally such fundamental defects would call for a fresh trial, but the Court held that ordering a retrial 26 years after the event, with witnesses unavailable and some accused already dead, would serve no useful purpose. Instead, finding a clear "failure of justice" to both the victims and the accused, the Court ordered the State of Gujarat to pay public-law compensation: Rs. 25 lakh to the family of each deceased victim and Rs. 10 lakh to each injured survivor (or their families), to be deposited in the trial court and distributed after verification. The Court also used the case to sharply criticise systemic failures, poor charge-framing, weak prosecution, and judicial/bar inefficiency, that let a triple-murder case go uncorrected for decades.
When a criminal trial is so badly conducted (defective charges, muddled evidence, unclear findings) that real justice becomes impossible decades later, the courts may step back from reopening the criminal case itself and instead compensate victims directly: a reminder that procedural rigor in framing charges at the very start of a trial is what protects everyone's ability to get a fair outcome later.
