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.
A mother, Zelam, was diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, and after giving birth to a daughter in August 2017 she and the father (respondent No.1) cared for the child together until the father himself was hospitalised with serious tuberculosis-related illness in November 2017. During his hospitalisation, the mother's sister (appellant No.1) and her family took the mother and child in for care, moving between Mumbai and Pune; the mother passed away in October 2018, and the child remained with the maternal relatives even after the father recovered and asked for her back. When the relatives refused to return the child, the father filed a habeas corpus petition before the Bombay High Court, which ordered the child's custody handed to him as the sole surviving parent; the relatives appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing habeas corpus was the wrong remedy and that the child's welfare (having bonded with them) should prevail.
The Supreme Court held that although habeas corpus is ordinarily meant for illegal detention and a Guardianship Act proceeding is the usual route for custody disputes, courts can and do use the habeas corpus jurisdiction in child custody matters where it is in the best interest of expeditious disposal, and technical objections to maintainability should not defeat substantive justice when the welfare of the child is involved. On the merits, surveying its own and High Court precedents, the Court reaffirmed that the welfare of the minor child, not the technical legal right of either party, is always the paramount and overriding consideration, and that a father's statutory preferential right as natural guardian must yield to what genuinely serves the child's best interests. Weighing the father's recovery, his stable work and family support against the risk that further delay would make the child's eventual separation from her present caregivers harder, the Court affirmed the High Court's direction to hand the child to the father, but added a graduated visitation schedule for the relatives who had cared for her, increasing their access over time as the child settles into her father's home.
In child custody disputes, the welfare and best interest of the child always overrides the technical legal right of a parent or any procedural objection to the remedy chosen (such as habeas corpus being used in place of a formal guardianship suit): courts will shape practical, phased remedies (like structured visitation) to protect the child's emotional continuity rather than make an abrupt all-or-nothing custody transfer.
