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 case arose from a 1988 land dispute in Katihar, Bihar, where the appellants and a large group of villagers allegedly attacked two brothers who were harvesting paddy on government land, resulting in deaths during the confrontation. The trial court convicted the appellants of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC (liability of members of an unlawful assembly), and the Patna High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court, disputing both the reliability of the eyewitness evidence and the manner in which the First Information Report (FIR) was recorded.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of the law on unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC, the standard for convicting a "bystander" versus an actual participant in a mob, and the principles for weighing ocular testimony against medical evidence. Critically, the Court found that the statement of the injured eyewitness (PW-20), recorded a day after the incident while earlier witnesses had already informed police of the two deaths, should legally have been treated as the actual FIR (not the later, more detailed version that was used at trial) and this discrepancy raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution's case. Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
The very first information given to police that discloses a cognizable offence must be recorded as the FIR, delaying or embellishing it and using a later, more detailed statement instead can fatally undermine the prosecution's credibility and lead to acquittal even in a case involving multiple deaths.
