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.
This case concerns "Shiksha Mitras", para-teachers engaged by Uttar Pradesh at low honorariums to address teacher shortages in primary schools, whose claim to absorption/regularisation as regular assistant teachers had already been rejected in an earlier Supreme Court decision (Anand Kumar Yadav). Following that ruling, the State conducted a fresh selection process for assistant teacher posts using a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)-linked written examination, and later fixed a cut-off of 65% (general category) and 60% (reserved categories) even after the exam had been conducted. Several groups, Shiksha Mitras, the Shiksha Mitra Association, B.Ed./B.T.C. candidates, and ex-servicemen/persons with disabilities, challenged aspects of this cut-off and selection process before the Allahabad High Court, which ruled partly against them, and the matter reached the Supreme Court through multiple connected civil appeals, a writ petition, and a contempt petition, all heard and decided together.
The Supreme Court held that fixing a 65-60% cut-off, even after the examination, was not illegal or arbitrary, noting that even at this cut-off the number of qualified candidates far exceeded available vacancies, and that recruiting authorities have the discretion to set selection criteria aimed at securing the best available teachers. It rejected the Shiksha Mitras' renewed challenge and their request for absorption, which was already foreclosed by the earlier Anand Kumar Yadav decision, and dismissed their appeals, while directing the State to give Shiksha Mitras one further opportunity to compete in the next selection round. The appeals by ex-servicemen and persons with disabilities were dismissed on the same reasoning regarding the cut-off, with any uncarried reserved vacancies to be dealt with as per the applicable rules. The connected writ petition and contempt petition were disposed of on the same terms, and the State was directed to proceed with filling posts based on the already-declared May 2020 result.
A recruiting authority has wide latitude to fix or revise merit cut-offs for public employment selections, even after an examination has been conducted, so long as the decision is not shown to be arbitrary, and courts will generally decline to interfere with such bona fide policy choices.
