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.
The appellant, a Brigadier in the Army's Intelligence Corps, was the only officer of his batch eligible for promotion to Major General in 2015, but was twice not empanelled (in April and again in a review in September 2015) despite scoring high marks (89.667 and later 90.469 out of 100) under the Army's quantified evaluation system. He challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed his case, holding that the Selection Board's decision could not be second-guessed by a court. A similarly situated officer in a tagged appeal faced the same issue.
The Supreme Court held that while there is no fundamental right to promotion, Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees a right to be fairly considered for promotion in accordance with the governing policy. Under the Army's own quantification scheme, only 5 of 100 marks were allotted to the Selection Board's subjective "value judgment," with the remaining 95 marks based on objective, quantifiable criteria like confidential reports, courses, and honours. The Court held that the Selection Board could not use that narrow 5-mark value-judgment component to override an officer's strong objective score and deny empanelment altogether, especially where, as here, he was the sole eligible candidate in his batch; doing so defeated the very purpose of introducing an objective quantification system. The Tribunal's judgment was set aside, the appeal allowed, and the respondents directed to reconsider the appellant's empanelment through a fresh Review Selection Board within six months, in line with the Court's observations. The tagged appeal was allowed on identical reasoning.
Even in specialised institutions like the Armed Forces, where courts normally defer to expert selection boards, a promotion decision that overrides an objective, rules-based scoring system through an unduly broad use of a small "subjective" component can be struck down as arbitrary and contrary to the governing policy.
