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

Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P.

Not available · 2024 INSC 131Decided 22 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

Ravindra Kumar applied for the post of Constable in 2004. Days after applying, he was implicated in a minor criminal case (assault-type offences), from which he was later acquitted after witnesses turned hostile and a compromise was reached on one charge. When he submitted his character-verification affidavit, he stated no criminal case had ever been registered against him. On discovering the earlier case, the authorities cancelled his selection for suppressing this fact and filing a false affidavit, and the High Court upheld the cancellation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute, one-size-fits-all rule that non-disclosure of an acquitted criminal case automatically disqualifies a candidate: each case must be assessed on its own facts, considering the nature of the offence, the outcome (honourable acquittal vs technical acquittal), and whether there was genuine concealment or a bona fide belief that no case was pending. Given the trivial nature of the case, the clean acquittal, and the surrounding circumstances, the Court held the cancellation was disproportionate, set aside the High Court's and the authorities' orders, and directed the appellant's appointment as Constable with full notional benefits (seniority, pay), though without back wages for the period not served.

Lesson Learnt

Disclosure requirements in government job applications must be judged with proportionality: an acquittal in a minor, resolved criminal matter does not automatically justify cancelling a selection, and courts will look at the full context rather than apply a mechanical bar.

Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware