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.
The Uttarakhand government advertised 440 posts of Female Health Worker and Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife (ANM) in 2016, but the advertisement omitted to mention a long-standing eligibility rule, inherited from pre-reorganisation Uttar Pradesh service rules, requiring candidates to have passed Intermediate (10+2) with science as a prerequisite in addition to completing the ANM training course. The appellants, qualified ANMs who did not hold the science-stream Intermediate qualification, were held ineligible and their claims were rejected; a single judge and then a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upheld this view, rejecting the ANMs' challenge. They appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the omission in the advertisement meant the science-stream requirement did not apply to them, and that state rules could not add qualifications beyond what the Indian Nursing Council Act prescribed.
The Supreme Court held that the UP recruitment rules (as amended in 1998), requiring Intermediate with science as an eligibility condition, continued in force in Uttarakhand after the state's creation under the UP Reorganisation Act, since the power to "adapt" laws did not mean an unmentioned rule simply vanished, all pre-existing rules remained operative unless expressly modified. The Court also held that the advertisement's failure to mention this qualification could not estop the State from enforcing its own valid statutory rules, since no promise or omission by the State can override a binding rule, and eligibility must be judged as of the last date for applications under the governing rules, not merely the advertisement's stated terms. It further rejected the argument that the Indian Nursing Council Act's training/educational standards displaced the State's power under Article 309 to additionally prescribe its own minimum qualifications for public employment, finding no conflict between the two regimes, and dismissed all the appeals.
A government advertisement that omits to mention an existing, legally binding eligibility rule does not relieve the government of enforcing that rule, and job applicants cannot claim eligibility based on gaps in an advertisement when a valid statutory service rule says otherwise.
