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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Rajeev Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 938Decided 31 Aug 2026
Crl.A. No.-004109-004109 - 2026
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

Background

The appellants were named in an FIR under the SC/ST Act and IPC but were not charge-sheeted after investigation. During trial, the complainant applied under Section 319 CrPC to have them summoned to face trial, and the Special Judge allowed this. The Allahabad High Court's Single Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal against that summoning order in a brief, eight-paragraph order giving no real reasons. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was "laconic" and failed to meet the basic minimum standard expected of a reasoned judicial order - it merely recited that there was "no illegality or perversity" without referring to any evidence justifying the summoning. Citing its earlier ruling in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad and the Constitution Bench test in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab for summoning additional accused, the Court found the High Court never explained what evidence, if any, satisfied that test. The Court quashed the High Court's order and remanded the criminal appeal for fresh, reasoned disposal.

Lesson Learnt

Every judicial order, however brief the compulsions of a heavy workload, must disclose the reasons for its conclusion - a bare "no illegality found" affirmation, without engaging the evidence, is not a valid judgment and can be set aside for that reason alone.

Rajeev Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware