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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 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 moreLegal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).
The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.
Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.
Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.
Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.
Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.
In October 2018, amid a public feud between the CBI Director, Alok Kumar Verma, and the CBI's Special Director over corruption allegations against each other, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) passed an order stripping Mr. Verma of all his powers and functions as Director, and the Central Government followed up with its own orders to the same effect, handing charge to another officer. Mr. Verma, along with the NGO Common Cause, challenged these orders directly in the Supreme Court, arguing that the law creating the CBI (the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act) required the prior consent of a high-powered selection Committee (comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee) before the Director could be removed or divested of power, and that no such consent had been obtained.
The Court traced the history of the CBI and the Supreme Court's own earlier directions in Vineet Narain's case, which led to statutory protections for the Director's fixed two-year tenure specifically to insulate the office from political interference. It held that the law's requirement of prior Committee consent for "transfer" of the Director must be read broadly to cover any action, not just a formal transfer, that effectively strips the Director of his powers and functions, since a narrow reading would let the government achieve the same result by another name and defeat the law's purpose. Since the CVC and the government had divested Mr. Verma of his powers without first obtaining the Committee's consent, the Court set aside all three impugned orders as without jurisdiction. It did not rule on whether the underlying corruption allegations against Mr. Verma had merit, leaving that question to be considered afresh by the Committee within a week; in the meantime, it directed that Mr. Verma, on reinstatement, refrain from taking any major policy decisions until the Committee's review was complete.
The head of an independent investigating agency like the CBI cannot be stripped of power through an administrative order alone, where a statute builds in a check (such as requiring a high-powered committee's consent) to protect an office from political interference, that safeguard must be read to cover any action that has the practical effect of removing the office-holder's authority, not just actions formally labelled the same way.
