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.
Following the 2018 Karnataka Assembly election, a coalition government of the Indian National Congress (INC) and Janata Dal (Secular) was formed, which lasted about 14 months. In mid-2019, a group of INC and JD(S) MLAs (the petitioners, including Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil and others) submitted resignations from the Assembly; the Speaker did not act on these resignations for an extended period even after the Supreme Court directed him to decide promptly. Separately, disqualification petitions were filed against several of these same MLAs for defying party whips, and the Speaker ultimately disqualified them under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), not only for the remainder of the current term but, in the order under challenge, the Speaker purported to bar them from being re-elected until the term's expiry. The disqualified MLAs challenged both the rejection/non-acceptance of their resignations and the disqualification orders.
The Supreme Court upheld the Speaker's orders disqualifying the petitioners under the Tenth Schedule, finding their resignations were not bona fide (being a tactic to escape the whip and avoid a no-confidence vote) and that the disqualification itself was validly made out. However, the Court struck down the part of the Speaker's orders that purported to bar the disqualified members from holding office or being re-elected until the expiry of the full Assembly term, holding that the Constitution does not empower a Speaker to impose disqualification for a fixed future period beyond what Articles 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B already prescribe (a bar on appointment as Minister/remunerative political post only until re-election or expiry of term, whichever is earlier). The Court also held the writ petitions maintainable directly before it, declined to refer the matter to a larger Constitution Bench for want of any substantial unresolved question of law, and used the occasion to criticise the growing trend of Speakers acting in a partisan rather than neutral manner in defection-related proceedings.
A Speaker deciding a legislator's disqualification under the anti-defection law must act within a quasi-judicial, constitutionally neutral role and cannot extend the practical consequences of disqualification (such as barring future office-holding) beyond what the Constitution itself specifies, even a valid disqualification order can be partly struck down if its remedy oversteps constitutional limits.
