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.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a public interest litigation was filed seeking directions to the Union Government to formally notify and implement a National Plan under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and to lay down minimum standards of relief for those affected by COVID-19 and the resulting lockdown. The petition's most prominent demand was that the Government be directed to use the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF), rather than the newly created "PM CARES Fund", for pandemic relief, and that all funds already collected in PM CARES be transferred into the NDRF, arguing the law required public/institutional disaster donations to go into the statutory NDRF under Section 46 of the Act.
The Supreme Court held there is no statutory bar on the Union Government using the NDRF to fight COVID-19, and no prohibition on individuals or institutions contributing to the NDRF, but equally, there is nothing unlawful about the Government separately creating the PM CARES Fund as a public charitable trust to receive voluntary contributions, since contribution to PM CARES is voluntary and the Disaster Management Act does not make the NDRF the exclusive permissible fund for disaster relief. The Court found NDRF and PM CARES Fund are "two entirely different funds with different objects and purposes," and refused to order the transfer of PM CARES Fund money into the NDRF, since there was no legal basis compelling such a transfer. The main prayers were refused and the writ petition was dismissed, subject to the Court's clarification of the law on the two funds' permissible, non-exclusive use.
The existence of a statutory disaster relief fund (like the NDRF) does not, by itself, bar the government from also creating and operating a separate voluntary charitable trust for the same emergency: courts will only compel government action (like transferring funds) where a specific statutory provision actually requires it, not merely because a petitioner considers one fund preferable to another.
