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 respondent belongs to the "Dhodia" community, recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in both Gujarat and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and had relocated from Gujarat to the Union Territory where he owned a home, was married locally, and was on the voter's list. He applied for a Scheduled-Tribe-reserved post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, topped the written exam among eligible candidates, but the authorities withheld the result and refused to appoint him, treating him as an outside "migrant" rather than a qualifying local Scheduled Tribe candidate. After the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and the Ministry of Home Affairs both found him eligible and still no appointment followed, he won a writ petition in the Bombay High Court directing his appointment, which the authorities then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Presidential Notification recognising "Dhodia" as a Scheduled Tribe for the Union Territory extends the reservation benefit on the basis of residence, not on the basis of where the person originally came from, relying on precedents including S. Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu and the Constitution Bench ruling in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board. Since the respondent had genuinely resided in the Union Territory for six years before the post was advertised, and the authorities' belated argument about a stricter "10-year residence" requirement had no evidentiary support and was never raised earlier, the Court found no merit in excluding him as a mere migrant. It held the authorities had caused "gross injustice" by withholding the appointment despite clear directions from the National Commission, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order directing his appointment.
A Scheduled Tribe candidate who has genuinely and lawfully relocated to and resided in a different State or Union Territory cannot be denied reservation benefits there merely for being a "migrant," so long as the community is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in that territory and the person is a bona fide resident.
