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.
The appellants were candidates empanelled in a 2013 ranked list ("RL-I") published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Trainee), but were never finally selected before the list lapsed. They sought to be appointed against 93 "Non-Joining Duty" (NJD) vacancies that arose later and were reported to the KPSC in 2016, arguing the State should have continued to draw candidates from their list rather than a newer one. The State declined, maintaining that RL-I had already expired (per the applicable rules, a list ceases to exist after a fixed period/number of advices) before these later vacancies were even reported, and that filling them required using the subsequently published ranked lists instead.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court's finding that RL-I had, in law, ceased to exist by 1 June 2016, before the NJD vacancies in question were reported to the KPSC, so no candidate could claim appointment against those vacancies based on that list. The Court traced the long procedural history, including earlier litigation over bifurcating the list into main and supplementary lists and an interim "status quo" order, and found that none of this had kept RL-I legally alive past its due expiry, nor had the State been directed at any point to specifically hold vacancies open for these appellants. It rejected the appellants' reliance on equitable maxims (that no one should suffer due to an act of the court, and that the law does not compel the impossible), holding these had no application since there was no court-caused prejudice: the list had simply run its lawful course.
A candidate's claim to a government job based on a ranked selection list is only as good as the list's own legal lifespan, once a recruitment list validly expires under the governing rules, vacancies reported afterward must be filled from the next list, even if some empanelled candidates from the earlier list were never ultimately appointed.
