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.
Following a 2013 recruitment drive for over 41,000 UP Police Constable, PAC and Fireman posts, litigation over disqualified candidates and unfilled vacancies led the Supreme Court to earlier direct the State to fill an additional 3,295 posts strictly by merit while following reservation rules. When the State published its revised select list on 11.11.2019, some candidates originally selected against reserved-category (OBC/SC/ST) seats were, due to their higher merit, repositioned into the "Open Category" list. The petitioners, general-category candidates who narrowly missed selection (several just short of the last successful candidate's cutoff marks), filed a writ petition arguing that these reserved-category candidates should not have been allowed to "shift" into open category seats, which they said prejudiced open-category aspirants like themselves.
The Supreme Court held that the State's approach, first placing meritorious reserved-category candidates who qualified on merit into the open category, and then filling the vacated reserved seats with the next eligible reserved-category candidates, was a standard and legally sound method of applying reservation along with merit, and was consistent with the Court's own earlier directions to fill the 3,295 posts strictly in order of merit while following reservation principles. The Court noted the petitioners did not claim anyone with lower marks than them had been selected; their real objection was only to the inter-category "shifting," which the Court found neither illegal nor invalid since all these posts belonged to the same original 2013 selection process. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.
Reserved-category candidates who qualify on merit are routinely moved into the open/general category list (a long-settled principle in Indian reservation law), and such adjustment does not by itself violate the rights of other open-category candidates unless someone with lower merit is shown to have been wrongly selected ahead of them.
