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.
Sikkim merged with India on 26 April 1975. In 2008 Parliament inserted Section 10(26AAA) into the Income Tax Act, exempting "Sikkimese" individuals from income tax on income arising in Sikkim, but defined "Sikkimese" by reference to the Register of Sikkim Subjects maintained under the Sikkim Subjects Regulation, 1961 (or descent from someone on that register). This left out "old Indian settlers": people of Indian origin who had lived in Sikkim from before the merger but never registered as Sikkim Subjects, largely because doing so would have meant surrendering Indian citizenship; they are about 1% of Sikkim's population, while roughly 95% enjoy the exemption. A proviso also stripped the exemption from any Sikkimese woman who married a non-Sikkimese after 1 April 2008, with no equivalent rule for Sikkimese men. The petitioners challenged both the exclusion and the proviso under Article 32.
Both writ petitions were allowed. Justice Shah held that the object of Section 10(26AAA) is to benefit residents of Sikkim, so all Indians who permanently settled there before 26 April 1975 form one class with the registered Sikkim Subjects; excluding them merely because their names (or their forefathers' names) were not on the 1961 register has no rational nexus with that object and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. He struck down the exclusion and held that all old Indian settlers who settled in Sikkim before the merger are entitled to the exemption, whether registered or not. Justice Nagarathna, in her separate opinion, would not strike the Explanation down (as that could withdraw the benefit from those currently eligible) but reached the same practical result under Article 142: she directed the Union to amend the Explanation to cover all Indian citizens domiciled in Sikkim on or before 26 April 1975, and held that until then such persons shall get the exemption. Both judges agreed that the proviso excluding a Sikkimese woman who marries a non-Sikkimese after 1 April 2008 is discrimination based purely on gender, "a woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own", and struck it down as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21.
A tax benefit cannot be denied to people who are in exactly the same position as those who receive it, on a basis unconnected to the law's purpose, and a woman cannot lose a legal benefit simply because of whom she marries when a man in her position would not. Equal protection under Article 14 and the bar on sex discrimination under Article 15 apply to tax exemptions as much as to any other law.
