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.
After Bihar nationalized non-Government secondary schools in 1981, their staff became State employees on Government pay scales. Later, to meet obligations under the Right to Education Act, the State recruited large numbers of additional ("Niyojit"/locally-engaged) teachers at Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat and Municipal levels, but paid them far less than the regular Government-scale teachers. These Niyojit teachers moved the Patna High Court claiming "equal pay for equal work," and the High Court ruled in their favour, directing parity with Government teachers. The State of Bihar appealed this decision (and several connected appeals) to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals and set aside the High Court's parity direction, dismissing the original writ petitions. The Court held that paying Niyojit teachers differently from Government teachers did not automatically violate "equal pay for equal work," because the two categories differed in mode of recruitment, qualifications, and service conditions, and the matter of pay-scale structuring for a very large workforce (nearly 4 lakh Niyojit teachers against about 66,000 Government teachers) is essentially a policy decision for the State, not one for courts to dictate. The Court noted the State had already been progressively improving Niyojit teachers' pay packages and had valid policy reasons (fiscal constraints, expanding access to education, improving literacy and the child-teacher ratio) for the existing structure. Justice Sapre, concurring, added that Article 14's equality guarantee does not mandate a rigid mathematical parity and endorsed the reasoning based on the Constitution Bench precedents in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh and Zabar Singh vs. State of Haryana.
"Equal pay for equal work" is not an absolute mathematical rule: courts will generally defer to the government's policy choices on pay structures for differently-recruited categories of employees, especially where recruitment mode, qualifications and service conditions genuinely differ, as long as the State can show it is acting rationally and improving conditions over time.
