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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Suresh Chandra & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (M.A. No. 1242 of 2021)

SLP (Crl.)Decided 13 May 2022
SLP (Crl.) No. 7628 of 2019
Abhay S. Oka

Background

Siya Ram, convicted along with four others under Section 304-Part I IPC, was shown as the first petitioner in an SLP filed by an Advocate-on-Record challenging the Allahabad High Court's judgment. After failing to surrender as directed, he was taken into custody. He later claimed through a new advocate that he had never authorised or signed the vakalatnama for that SLP. He was illiterate and always used a thumb impression, whereas the vakalatnama on file bore a signature in Hindi. An inquiry was ordered into how the SLP came to be filed in his name.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined the Advocate-on-Record's and his colleague's statements and found that the colleague who took instructions never personally knew the petitioners, was not accompanied by anyone who could vouch for their identity, and never verified identity through Aadhaar/PAN, nor obtained the mandatory endorsement under Rule 7(b) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 certifying proper execution of the vakalatnama. Since this certification was missing and the applicant's illiteracy/thumb-impression practice was corroborated by jail records, the Court accepted that Siya Ram had not signed or authorised the earlier SLP, and directed that the SLP be treated as filed only by the other four petitioners. However, it clarified that the earlier custody action against him could not be nullified. The Registry was directed to circulate this order to remind Advocates-on-Record of the mandatory certification requirement.

Lesson Learnt

An Advocate-on-Record must personally verify a client's identity (via Aadhaar/PAN or personal knowledge) and formally certify due execution of a vakalatnama under Supreme Court Rules; failure to do so can allow a person to later show they never authorised litigation filed in their name, but such a finding does not automatically undo other lawful consequences (like custody) that already followed.

Suresh Chandra & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (M.A. No. 1242 of 2021) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware