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.
Article 370 of the Constitution had given Jammu & Kashmir a special, semi-autonomous status since independence. In 2019, while the State was under President's Rule (its Legislative Assembly having been dissolved), the President issued two Constitutional Orders: one applying the entire Constitution of India to the State and modifying how "Constituent Assembly" was read in Article 370, and another declaring that all of Article 370 would cease to operate. On the same day, Parliament, acting in place of the dissolved State Legislature, passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, splitting the State into two Union Territories (Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh). Numerous petitioners challenged all of this as unconstitutional, arguing that Jammu & Kashmir had never fully surrendered its sovereignty, that Article 370 could only be altered through its own specific procedure (which required the now-dissolved State Constituent Assembly's involvement), and that turning an entire State into Union Territories without its consent violated India's federal structure.
The Court held that Jammu & Kashmir retained no residual "internal sovereignty" once it acceded to India: Article 370 was always meant as a temporary, transitional arrangement to ease that State's full integration, not a permanent guarantee of separate status. It held that the President's power under Article 370(3) to declare the article inoperative survived the 1957 dissolution of the State's own Constituent Assembly, because that dissolution only ended the Assembly's own role in the process, not the President's power. The Court found one specific technical move invalid in isolation, using the interpretation clause of Article 367 to indirectly amend Article 370 itself, but held it did not matter because the President could achieve and had achieved the same result validly through his separate, direct power under Article 370(1)(d). It also upheld that Parliament, standing in for the State Legislature during President's Rule, could validly give its "views" on the Reorganisation Bill and that the President could impose President's Rule and dissolve the Assembly under Article 356 in these circumstances. The Court accepted the government's assurance that Jammu & Kashmir's statehood would eventually be restored and directed the Election Commission to hold Assembly elections by 30 September 2024. In his separate opinion, Justice Kaul added an unusual coda recommending that the government set up an impartial truth-and-reconciliation commission to investigate decades of human rights violations by both state and non-state actors in the Kashmir Valley.
A constitutional provision described as "temporary" or "transitional" can be brought to an end through the very mechanism written into it, even if the specific body originally meant to trigger that mechanism (here, the State's own Constituent Assembly) no longer exists, as long as the power itself was vested in an office, like the President, that continues to exist.
