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.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 1060
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, including on alimony, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual-consent divorce and close out all related litigation in one stroke, without requiring the usual statutory waiting period.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1061
In long-running, complex litigation involving apportioned government liabilities across states, the Supreme Court can use a mechanism like a retired-judge committee plus periodic compliance affidavits to bring genuine finality, including firm timelines, transparency obligations, and interest for delayed payment, rather than leaving matters open-ended.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1062
In an "as is where is" liquidation auction, a bidder who voluntarily accepts the auction terms cannot later resile from a forfeiture clause by citing regulatory caps or after-the-fact excuses for non-payment: courts will enforce the auction notice's own conditions.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8338-DB
Once someone is released from custody because the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest, the police cannot simply re-arrest them by adding new charges: a specific, court-supervised procedure with senior-officer accountability must be followed, or the re-arrest itself becomes illegal.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8308
In economic-offence cases, bail can still be granted where the method used to quantify the alleged financial evasion is not adequately justified, and where the apprehension of re-offending is speculative rather than evidence-based.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8323
A parole claim must be backed by a genuine, verifiable application to the competent jail authority: courts will scrutinise irregularities like an incomplete address, an unexplained thumb mark, or reliance on a mere friend's affidavit rather than close family.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8337
Courts can grant short, strictly time-bound interim bail purely on humanitarian/compassionate grounds (such as caring for a seriously ill family member), even while a case remains pending trial and an earlier bail plea has failed.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8312
Courts will not repeatedly re-examine a bail plea already rejected on merits unless the applicant can point to a genuine change in circumstances since the earlier order.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8334
Under the no-fault compensation scheme for railway accidents, a valid ticket-holder injured while attempting to board a train, even carelessly, is generally entitled to compensation unless the railway can show a deliberate, conscious exposure to danger, not mere negligence.
6171 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.
Abu Salem, a fugitive linked to organised crime and the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts conspiracy, fled India on a fake Pakistani passport and was later convicted and imprisoned in Portugal for that passport offence. India sought his extradition for the 1995 murder of Pradeep Jain (an extortion victim) and for the bomb blasts case, and the Government of India gave Portugal a solemn sovereign assurance, through the Deputy Prime Minister and reflecting Section 34C of the Extradition Act, that Salem would not face the death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years if extradited. Portugal's courts granted extradition only on this condition, and Salem was handed over to India in November 2005. Years later, disputes arose over (i) whether his death sentence for the murder conviction could stand given the 25-year assurance, and (ii) from what date his 25-year sentence should be calculated: specifically whether time spent in Portuguese custody (both serving his passport-offence sentence and under the Red Corner notice) should count toward the 25 years.
The Court held that under Section 428 CrPC, only detention connected to the Indian proceedings can be set off against an Indian sentence: time served for an unrelated offence abroad (his Portuguese passport conviction) cannot be counted, since criminal law does not have extra-territorial application and set-off cannot give a "double benefit." It rejected Salem's argument that his formal detention date under the Red Corner notice (18.09.2002) should be the starting point, since during that period he was still serving out his separate Portuguese sentence. Instead, the Court held that his 25-year sentence period must be reckoned from 12 October 2005: the date he was granted conditional release from the Portuguese sentence and his detention became solely referable to the Indian extradition proceedings, following the reasoning from Allan John Waters. Given India's binding sovereign assurance to Portugal, the Court directed that on completion of 25 years from that date, the Central Government must place the matter before the President under Article 72 (or exercise its own remission powers under Sections 432/433 CrPC) to ensure his release, in line with international comity and the national commitment made to secure his extradition.
A sovereign assurance given by India to a foreign country to secure someone's extradition is legally binding and must be honoured even years later; and time spent in foreign custody for an unrelated conviction cannot be credited against a later Indian sentence, only detention genuinely connected to the Indian case counts for such set-off.
