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.
Several writ petitions under Article 32 challenged Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which mandated a flat 27% reservation of seats for OBCs, arguing it was unconstitutional because, combined with reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it pushed total reservation in several districts (Washim, Akola, Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondiya) well beyond 50% of total seats: contrary to the Supreme Court's earlier Constitution Bench ruling in K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India. The petitioners also challenged specific State Election Commission notifications that had implemented these excess-reservation seats in local body elections held in 2019-2020.
The Court held that Section 12(2)(c) was not unconstitutional outright, but needed to be "read down": the word "shall be" (27%) was reinterpreted as "may be," meaning OBC reservation can only be granted up to 27% and only to the extent that the combined SC+ST+OBC reservation does not exceed an aggregate ceiling of 50% of total seats, as laid down in K. Krishna Murthy. It also held that before reserving any seats for OBCs, the State must first satisfy three conditions, setting up a dedicated commission to conduct rigorous, contemporaneous empirical inquiry into backwardness, specifying the proportion of reservation based on that inquiry, and ensuring aggregate reservation (SC+ST+OBC) stays within the 50% ceiling, none of which Maharashtra had done. Exercising its plenary power under Article 142, the Court quashed the election notifications to the extent they provided for OBC reservation beyond this framework, declared the resulting OBC-seat election results void (though decisions already taken by these local bodies would remain unaffected), and directed the State Election Commission to hold fresh elections for the vacated seats as general/open category within two weeks.
Reservation for OBCs in local self-government is a statutory, not constitutional, entitlement and must yield to an overall 50% ceiling on combined SC/ST/OBC reservation: states cannot keep applying a fixed reservation percentage without first conducting a rigorous, updated empirical study (a "triple test") to justify it, and courts can even unwind completed elections using Article 142 powers when that process is skipped.
