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.
7878 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.
Following the reorganization of Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019, the Government imposed widespread restrictions in the region, including suspension of internet and mobile services and restrictions on movement/assembly under Section 144 CrPC. Kashmir Times executive editor Anuradha Bhasin, whose newspaper's operations were badly disrupted, and politician Ghulam Nabi Azad, challenged these restrictions before the Supreme Court as violating fundamental rights to free speech, free press, trade, and movement, and argued the orders imposing them were never even made public.
The Court held that freedom of speech and expression, and freedom to carry on trade or business, through the medium of the internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and that any restriction on these rights must meet the test of proportionality under Articles 19(2) and (6). It ruled that an indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible under the governing Suspension Rules: suspensions can only be for a temporary duration, must be periodically reviewed, and are subject to judicial review. All orders imposing such restrictions, and any future orders, must be published so that affected persons can challenge them. Similarly, orders under Section 144 CrPC cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or dissent, must record the specific material facts justifying them, and must not be passed repetitively as a matter of routine. The Court directed the authorities to review all existing restriction orders and revoke those not meeting these standards, while also directing that essential services like banking, hospitals and government websites be restored where connectivity remained suspended.
Internet access for speech and commerce is constitutionally protected in India, so government shutdowns of internet or communication services, or blanket prohibitory orders restricting movement, cannot be indefinite, unreviewed, or kept secret; they must be temporary, proportionate, periodically reviewed, and published so citizens can challenge them in court.
