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 2008-2009, the then State of Jammu and Kashmir advertised 72 posts of Drug Inspector and laid down a marking scheme giving candidates points for their educational qualifications plus a viva-voce (interview) worth 20 out of 100 marks. After applications were received but before the interviews, the recruitment board revised the marking scheme by a corrigendum, increasing the marks given for having a pharmacy/chemistry degree or higher qualifications (from 55 to 65 points, adding separate points for a Ph.D., etc.). Sixty-four candidates were eventually selected and appointed on 12 November 2009. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the process in the High Court, arguing the changed criteria and the viva-voce marks were unfair and arbitrary; a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court agreed and quashed the entire selection, even though the selected candidates had already been working as Drug Inspectors for over a decade by the time of the final High Court order. The selected candidates appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that candidates who took part in the selection process without objecting to the revised marking criteria at the time, and only challenged it after they were declared unsuccessful, could not later claim the process was unfair: this is barred by the legal principle of waiver/acquiescence, unless there was proof of bad faith (mala fide) by the selection board, which was not shown here. The Court found the marks revision was a genuine, transparent attempt to reward higher qualifications and was not arbitrary. It also held that the High Court was wrong to cancel the entire selection merely because individual signed mark-sheets for each candidate could not later be produced: such a record-keeping gap, without more, does not prove the whole process was rigged, especially given the selected candidates had already served for over ten years. The Supreme Court set aside both the Single Judge's and the Division Bench's orders and restored the original 2009 selection and appointments.
If you participate in a selection process without objecting to its rules or criteria at the time, you generally cannot challenge those same rules later simply because you did not succeed: objections to an unfair process must be raised promptly, not only after the result is known.
