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.
The Kerala High Court had notified 37 "probable" vacancies for Munsiff-Magistrate recruitment in 2019, and after examinations and interviews a merit list was approved by the Governor in May 2020, under which 32 candidates were appointed. Wait-listed candidates then went to the Kerala High Court (on its judicial side) arguing that under a 2019 amendment to Kerala Judicial Service Rule 7(2), any vacancies arising within one year of the merit list's approval, including fresh vacancies meant for the next (2020) recruitment cycle, should also be filled from the same 2019 list. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court agreed with the candidates, prompting the High Court (as the recruiting authority) to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Rule 7(2) must be read harmoniously with its own earlier directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which require that appointments not exceed the number of vacancies actually notified for a given recruitment year. It held that "probable number of vacancies" only covers adjustments for things like deaths, resignations or promotions within that same recruitment cycle: it cannot be stretched to let a later year's fresh vacancies be filled from an earlier year's select list, as that would unfairly deny opportunity to candidates who become eligible in the later year. The Court also rejected the High Court's own suggested "piecemeal training with stipend" workaround as impractical and legally unsound, and set aside the Division Bench's judgment, dismissing the original writ petitions.
In public recruitment, a select list can only be used to fill the vacancies actually notified for that recruitment cycle: later vacancies belong to the next cycle's candidates, and reading a "one-year validity" rule to bypass this would violate the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment.
