Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Criminal AppealDecided 25 Feb 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2022

Background

The appellant was accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The trial court had earlier declared five prosecution witnesses "protected witnesses" and sealed their statements to guard against threats to their safety. When the trial was about to begin, the accused sought redacted (identity-masked) copies of these statements to prepare his defence; the trial court allowed this, but the High Court reversed it, calling it an impermissible "review" of the earlier protection order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the provisions protecting witness identity (Section 44 UAPA, Section 173(6) CrPC) and the accused's right to disclosure of evidence (Section 207 CrPC) operate at different stages and serve different purposes, protecting witnesses does not mean cutting off the accused's right to a fair trial. Granting a redacted copy (with names, addresses and identifying details removed) was not a "review" of the earlier protection order but a separate, permissible exercise of power at the trial stage. The Court restored the trial court's order allowing redacted statements to be given to the accused, holding it struck a fair balance between witness safety and defence rights.

Lesson Learnt

Protecting a witness's identity in sensitive cases does not mean the accused loses the right to see the substance of the evidence against them. Courts can and should redact identifying details rather than deny disclosure altogether.

Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware