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 petitioners, environmentalists, filed a public interest writ petition to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, two bird species on the verge of extinction in parts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. They sought interim directions requiring the states to prevent further overhead power lines, windmills and solar infrastructure in the birds' priority habitats, and to install "bird diverters" on existing power lines, citing a Wildlife Institute of India study estimating around one lakh bird deaths a year from collisions with power lines, including GIBs dying from collisions with high-tension transmission lines. The Union of India's Ministry of Power itself admitted in an affidavit that the GIB, lacking frontal vision and being a heavy, poorly maneuverable bird, is especially vulnerable to collision with overhead power lines.
The Supreme Court invoked the "ecocentric" (nature-centred, as opposed to purely human-interest-centred) principle of environmental jurisprudence drawn from its earlier Godavarman and Centre for Environmental Law rulings, and held that urgent protective steps were warranted given the real risk of extinction. It ordered that overhead power lines in identified priority GIB habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat be converted into underground power lines wherever technically feasible, with bird diverters to be installed immediately on power lines pending such conversion. The Court constituted a three-member technical committee of wildlife and energy experts to assess feasibility of undergrounding specific power lines where doubt existed, directed the undergrounding (where feasible) to be completed within one year, and listed out specific stretches of power lines in Kutch (Gujarat) and Rajasthan to be undergrounded or fitted with diverters.
Courts can and do grant specific, technically detailed interim relief in environmental public interest litigation, including infrastructure changes like undergrounding power lines, when expert evidence shows an endangered species faces imminent extinction, applying a "nature-centred" rather than purely human-interest approach to balancing development against conservation.
