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 respondent, an Area Organizer (later DIG) of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), was accused by a woman subordinate employee of sustained sexual harassment (including inappropriate phone calls, forced isolation at work, unwelcome visits to her residence, physical contact, and marriage proposals) over more than two years. After an on-spot inquiry and a Frontier Complaints Committee inquiry (later cancelled for being improperly constituted), a Central Complaints Committee (CCC) examined the allegations across two complaints and around 20 witnesses, and the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the respondent's pension. The Gauhati High Court set aside this penalty on three grounds: that the CCC had wrongly gone beyond the first complaint it was mandated to examine, that it improperly acted as prosecutor by questioning witnesses, and that its findings on one specific allegation were based on conjecture rather than evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court on all three grounds. First, applying the "test of prejudice" doctrine, it held that even if the respondent was not formally asked to plead guilty to the second complaint, no real prejudice resulted since he had already filed a full written defence denying all charges and cross-examined every witness on every point. Second, relying on its own precedent (Pravin Kumar v. Union of India) and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that an inquiry committee, like a judge, is entitled to put clarifying questions to witnesses to get at the truth, and doing so does not turn it into a "prosecutor." Third, on the "no evidence" argument, the Court reviewed the extensive witness testimony (multiple coworkers corroborating patterns of harassment, favoritism, and inappropriate conduct) and held this was not a "no evidence" case. Courts reviewing disciplinary findings must not re-weigh sufficiency of evidence, only check whether some evidence exists and whether the finding is not perverse. The Court also emphasized that while false sexual harassment allegations must be carefully guarded against, genuine allegations must be treated with the seriousness they deserve. It restored the disciplinary authority's penalty (though directed no recovery of pension amounts already paid in the interim) and allowed the Union of India's appeal.
Courts reviewing workplace sexual harassment inquiries will not second-guess the internal committee's factual findings or minor procedural lapses unless genuine prejudice or a complete absence of evidence is shown; an inquiry committee is permitted to actively question witnesses to uncover the truth, and technical defects in procedure do not automatically invalidate a disciplinary finding if the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself.
