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.
After Bihar was split to create Jharkhand in 2000, Pankaj Kumar, born in a district that became part of Jharkhand, educated there, and already serving as a government teacher there, was selected for a Scheduled Caste reserved post in Jharkhand's civil services but his appointment was withheld on the ground that his service record showed his family's origin as Patna, Bihar, making him a "migrant" ineligible for Jharkhand's SC quota. In a separate but connected batch of cases, several men who had been appointed as police constables under SC/ST/OBC reservation in Jharkhand had their services terminated years later on similar "migrant" grounds, after they had produced caste certificates issued by Bihar rather than Jharkhand.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, a person who was ordinarily resident in, and whose service was absorbed into, the new State of Jharkhand on the appointed day retains the benefit of reservation in Jharkhand, and such a person is not a "migrant" merely because his family's place of origin was in undivided Bihar; Pankaj Kumar was therefore entitled to appointment with seniority and notional pay from his original selection date. For the terminated constables, who genuinely qualified as migrants under the applicable test, the Court nonetheless invoked its special constitutional power (Article 142) to order their reinstatement with notional pay (though without back wages), given that they had acted in good faith, had already served for years, and had lost about thirteen years to litigation through no fault of their own. The Court clarified that a person may claim reservation benefits in only one of the two successor states, not both.
Where a state is reorganised, your eligibility for reservation benefits generally follows where you were actually residing and serving on the date of the split, not simply your family's historical place of origin, and the Supreme Court can use its special equity powers to protect long-serving employees even when a technical rule is against them.
