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.
Students who took the NEET 2020 exam for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course did not meet the minimum qualifying percentile set by Dental Council of India regulations. The Dental Council itself recommended lowering the cut-off percentile (as had been done in previous years), citing roughly 7,000 vacant BDS seats nationwide, but the Union Government declined to act on that recommendation. The students, along with a group of Andhra Pradesh dental colleges, petitioned the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, arguing the Government's refusal was arbitrary.
The Supreme Court held that the Government's decision not to lower the cut-off was legally flawed because it rested on an incorrect and incomplete comparison of available seats to eligible candidates (ignoring that NEET now also covered AYUSH and other courses, which meant the real seat-to-candidate ratio was far tighter than the Government claimed), and because it relied on irrelevant considerations such as the adequacy of dentists already in the country. The Court noted the Government had lowered minimum marks for BDS in the previous year and for super-speciality and AYUSH courses more recently, undercutting its claim that lowering marks would compromise standards. The Government's decision was set aside as illegal and irrational, and the Court directed that vacant BDS seats for 2020-21 be filled by lowering the qualifying percentile by 10 points across categories, with admissions completed by a fixed date, while also noting high private-college fees (not merely the cut-off) were a real deterrent to admissions.
When a government decision has to balance competing considerations under a specific regulatory power, courts will strike it down if the decision-maker relies on an inaccurate factual basis or factors outside the purpose for which that power was granted, even in a technical/educational policy matter where courts usually defer to expert bodies.
