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.
A batch of candidates who had exhausted their permissible attempts or crossed the upper age limit after failing the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2020, held on 4 October 2020 after being deferred from its original May 2020 date due to COVID-19, petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 for an additional attempt, arguing the pandemic had hampered their preparation and effective participation. The applicable 2020 Examination Rules fixed a maximum number of attempts and a strict age ceiling of 32 years for general-category candidates, with no provision for discretionary relaxation. In response to an earlier Court order showing sympathy for "last-attempt" candidates, the Union government had proposed giving one extra attempt only to those who had used their final attempt in 2020, but even the petitioners themselves objected that this partial fix was discriminatory.
The Supreme Court held that the examination rules left no discretion to relax either the number of attempts or the age limit for general-category candidates, and that the Commission had already granted substantial accommodations (deferring the exam by five months, reopening the withdrawal window) in response to the pandemic. It agreed that the government's proposed partial relief (extra attempt only for "last-attemptees") would itself be arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14, since all 2020 candidates, and indeed candidates across many other 2020 exams nationwide, faced similar pandemic-related hardship, so singling out one subgroup could not be justified. Citing the limited scope of judicial review over policy decisions (intervention only where a policy is arbitrary, capricious or unreasoned), the Court declined to direct the Commission to create a new policy granting extra attempts, holding that doing so would set a precedent with cascading effects across other recruitment processes nationwide. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty left to the executive to address such difficulties through policy in future if it chooses.
Courts will not use their writ jurisdiction to rewrite eligibility rules for competitive examinations or compel the executive to adopt a particular policy accommodation, even for hardship as widespread as a pandemic: judicial review of policy is limited to cases of arbitrariness, and a selectively generous fix can itself be struck down as discriminatory.
