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 COVID-19 pandemic, the Union Ministry of AYUSH issued an advisory permitting homeopathic medicines to be used for prevention, symptom management, and as an add-on to conventional treatment of COVID-19-like illness. An advocate filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court asking only that the State of Kerala be directed to implement this advisory. The Kerala High Court disposed of the petition but went further than what was asked, directing that homeopathic practitioners could prescribe medicines only as "immunity boosters" and that anyone prescribing or advertising homeopathic medicine as a "cure" for COVID-19 should face action under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. A homeopathy educational institution, which was not even a party to the original case, appealed to the Supreme Court against this restrictive direction.
The Supreme Court held that the Kerala High Court had misread the Ministry of AYUSH's own guidelines, which permitted homeopathic practitioners to prescribe medicines not just as immunity boosters but also for symptom management and as an add-on to conventional treatment for COVID-positive patients (with the permission of local health authorities and hospital superintendents), not just prevention alone. The Court found the High Court had gone beyond the limited relief actually sought in the writ petition (which only asked for implementation of the AYUSH advisory) and should not have issued sweeping directions threatening homeopathic doctors with Disaster Management Act action. At the same time, the Court agreed that no system of medicine, including homeopathy, could claim to "cure" COVID-19, and that advertising such a cure was already independently barred under the Homeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1982. The Court therefore modified the High Court's direction, clarifying that AYUSH's own advisory and guidelines (which allow broader therapeutic use, not just immunity-boosting) should govern, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Courts should decide only what is actually asked for in a case and not issue broader directions that go beyond the specific relief sought, especially when doing so affects the rights of people who were never given a chance to be heard; and no medical system can legally claim to be a guaranteed "cure" without scientific backing, even while being validly used for prevention, symptom relief, or supportive care.
