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 the 2013 recruitment for Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh, only 8 vacancies were advertised and an initial select list of 8 candidates was published. Afterwards, a committee including representatives of the State Government, the Public Service Commission and the High Court decided, based on a prior High Court ruling requiring larger select lists, to add four more names, including appellants Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra, to posts that had actually arisen only after the advertisement was issued. Years later, another unsuccessful candidate challenged this in the High Court, which held the appointments illegal because they were made against vacancies that were never advertised, and quashed them; Vivek Kaisth and the other affected appointees then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the selection process was indeed legally flawed: the additional posts were "future" vacancies that had not existed when the advertisement was issued, so appointing candidates to them without a fresh advertisement violated recruitment law, and also noted that the High Court itself (on its administrative side) shared blame for not objecting during the process, contrary to its later stance. However, invoking its special equity powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and following the recent Constitution Bench ruling in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, the Court declined to unseat the appellants: they had qualified through merit, showed no favouritism or wrongdoing, had already served roughly ten years as judges and been promoted, and removing them now would not serve the public interest. It therefore upheld the finding of illegality in law but set aside the actual quashing of their appointments, while dismissing the other connected appeals seeking to displace them.
Even where a court finds that a public appointment process was technically flawed, it may still decline to unseat long-serving, blameless appointees using its equitable "complete justice" powers, particularly where years have passed, the individuals have gained real experience, and stripping them of office would harm the public interest more than the original procedural lapse did.
