Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 485Decided 16 Sept 2021
Civil Appeal No. 5733 of 2021
Justice K.M. Joseph · Justice P.S. Narasimha

Background

The respondent applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Rajasthan; although the application form did not require disclosure of past criminal cases, he voluntarily revealed during verification that he had been named in four old FIRs between 1999 and 2012, in two of which he was acquitted following compromises and in two of which police filed final reports (closure). A High Court committee, after reviewing the facts in light of the Supreme Court's Avtar Singh precedent, decided his acquittals were not "clean" and declined to recommend his appointment. The High Court (in judicial review) found this decision unconstitutional and ordered his appointment; the High Court (as the recruiting authority) then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that appointments to judicial posts demand the most exacting standards of character scrutiny because judges must command public confidence, and an employer's discretion to assess a candidate's "suitability" (as opposed to bare "eligibility") is given wide latitude by courts. It found the respondent's acquittals were based on compromise rather than a clean finding of innocence, and that in two of the four FIRs chargesheets had actually been filed for the non-bailable offence under Section 324 IPC. Since the committee's decision-making process was not shown to be illegal, unfair, or made in bad faith, the Court held the High Court (as a reviewing court) should not have substituted its own view for the recruiting committee's judgment. The appeal was allowed and the earlier High Court judgment ordering appointment was set aside.

Lesson Learnt

For judicial and other highly sensitive public posts, being acquitted of a past criminal case does not automatically guarantee you the job: if the acquittal came through a compromise/settlement rather than a clear finding of no wrongdoing, the appointing authority is entitled to treat that as a relevant mark against your suitability, and courts will generally not interfere with that judgment unless the process itself was flawed.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware