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.
In March 2020, political turmoil in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly arose after 22 MLAs tendered resignations, prompting the Governor to repeatedly direct the Chief Minister to prove his majority through a floor test. Two writ petitions under Article 32 were filed: one by ten MLAs seeking a direction to compel an immediate floor test as per the Governor's directions, and another by the Madhya Pradesh Congress Legislature Party seeking relief alleging that the resigning MLAs were being illegally confined by the Union, the State of Karnataka, and the BJP, and asking that any trust vote be held only in the presence of all elected members.
The Court had already issued interim operative directions on 19 March 2020 directing that the Assembly session be reconvened on 20 March 2020 for a single-agenda floor test (confidence in the Chief Minister) by show of hands, videographed and live-telecast where possible, to be concluded by 5 pm, with police authorities in both Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka ensuring the sixteen MLAs in question faced no restraint on their liberty to attend if they chose to. This judgment supplies the detailed reasoning for and affirms those directions as final, relying on the nine-Judge Bench ruling in S.R. Bommai and the Constitution Bench ruling in Nabam Rebia. It rejected the Congress party's additional pleas, such as a demand that no trust vote occur without all 230 MLAs present or until by-elections were held for the 22 vacant seats, as misconceived, holding that whether an individual member attends the House is that member's own choice and responsibility, not something the Court can mandate. Writ Petition No. 439/2020 was disposed of in terms of the earlier directions, and Writ Petition No. 449/2020 (the Congress party's petition) was dismissed.
When the numerical strength of a government in a legislature is genuinely in doubt, a floor test is the constitutionally mandated way to resolve it swiftly; individual legislators cannot be compelled to attend a trust vote, nor can a vote be stalled by demanding that absent or resigned members first be produced or their seats first be refilled.
