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 Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) conducted a large recruitment exam in 2010-2013 for over 3,000 government posts. After disputes arose over several allegedly incorrect exam questions, a single judge of the Patna High Court ordered the results revised by deleting four questions, leading to some candidates' selections being reversed. On further appeal, a Division Bench revised the answers to a different set of four questions and ordered accommodation of newly-qualifying candidates without disturbing existing appointments. Multiple sets of appellants, the BSSC, candidates who felt even more questions were wrongly evaluated, and others, all appealed to the Supreme Court, which (in an earlier order) had appointed its own four-member expert committee to independently determine the correct answers to ten disputed questions.
The Supreme Court held that courts have only a narrow power to interfere with examination evaluation, and should ordinarily defer to the examining body and academic experts rather than re-marking answers themselves, reiterating its earlier ruling in Ran Vijay Singh that repeated judicial interference in exam results creates prolonged uncertainty harming everyone involved, including the examination authorities, selected candidates, and the public interest in timely appointments. Finding that neither the single judge nor the Division Bench had relied on any expert panel in revising the earlier evaluations, while the Court's own four-member expert committee had now settled the correct answers after years of litigation, the Court accepted the expert committee's findings and set aside both the single judge's and Division Bench's judgments. It directed the BSSC to republish results based on the expert committee's answers, while protecting candidates already appointed under the earlier result and using its special constitutional powers (Article 142) to direct the State of Bihar to absorb any additional qualifying candidates against future vacancies rather than disturbing existing postings.
Courts are reluctant to second-guess exam answer keys on their own judgment: if you dispute exam results, the stronger path is to press for an independent expert panel to review the disputed questions rather than expecting judges to substitute their own assessment for that of subject-matter experts.
