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.
9257 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.
In 2016, the Central Government raised the retirement age for allopathic ("regular" Western-medicine) doctors in government service from 60 to 65 years, but initially did not extend the same benefit to AYUSH doctors (those practising Ayurveda, Unani, and similar systems) working in the same municipal corporations. A group of AYUSH doctors challenged this as discriminatory before a government tribunal and won, with courts directing that they too be allowed to continue working until 65 and be paid for that extra service. The Ministry later extended the same retirement-age benefit to AYUSH doctors too, but only effective from a later date (27.09.2017), creating a gap period during which some AYUSH doctors had kept working (often under court interim orders) without being paid. The municipal corporations appealed, arguing they should not have to pay full back wages for this gap period.
The Supreme Court dismissed the municipal corporations' appeals and upheld the doctors' right to full back pay. It held that treating AYUSH doctors differently from allopathic doctors purely based on their system of medicine was an unreasonable and discriminatory classification violating Article 14 of the Constitution, since both groups performed the same core function of treating patients. Invoking the legal principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court should harm no one), the Court held that doctors who had continued serving patients under interim court orders could not be denied salary for that genuine work, and that the AYUSH Ministry's 2017 order extending the retirement age should be applied retrospectively from the original 2016 notification date. The doctors were awarded full salary arrears, to be paid within 8 weeks, with 6% interest for any delay.
Government employees doing the same essential job cannot be denied equal service benefits, such as retirement age or pay, merely because they belong to a differently labelled category or discipline; and employees who keep working under a court's interim protection are entitled to be paid for that work once the case is finally decided in their favour.
