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.
In 2000, the (undivided) State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.3, invoking the Governor's special power under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, to reserve 100% of teacher posts in schools located in Scheduled Areas exclusively for local Scheduled Tribe candidates. This followed an earlier, similar notification from 1986 that had already been struck down. Non-tribal candidates challenged the fresh notification, and a split (2:1) Full Bench of the High Court had upheld it by majority. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to settle several questions about the Governor's powers and the permissible limits of reservation.
The Supreme Court held that the Governor's power under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is a power to adapt or modify existing laws of Parliament or the State Legislature for Scheduled Areas: it is not a free-standing power to create new subordinate legislation, and it cannot override the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. It held that 100% reservation is constitutionally impermissible, reaffirming the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney, and that providing reservation to one community to the complete exclusion of all others (including other backward and reserved categories) was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16. The cut-off eligibility date of 26.1.1950 fixed in the notification was also held unreasonable. As relief, the Court quashed G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 but, considering 20 years had passed and the appointees were not personally at fault, conditionally protected appointments already made, while directing the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana never to attempt such an exercise again, on pain of losing that protection, and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh shared equally between the two States.
Reservation in public employment, even when justified on grounds of historical disadvantage or local administrative need, cannot be extended to 100% of posts: some representation for other eligible candidates must always remain available, and the outer constitutional limit of 50% (with narrow exceptions) continues to bind even specially empowered bodies like a Governor acting under the Fifth Schedule.
