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.
A 2008 advertisement for 1,651 "Safai-Karmi" (sanitation worker) posts in District Mau, U.P., included reservations for disabled candidates under a 1999 Government Order (G.O.) that had earmarked specific job categories for specific kinds of disability: sweeper-type posts for deaf/partially-deaf candidates and posts like Peon/Daftry for candidates with locomotor disability. The appellants, who had locomotor disabilities, applied for the Safai-Karmi posts, took the selection tests, but were not appointed. They challenged the G.O. before the Allahabad High Court, which struck it down as discriminatory and unconstitutional for confining certain posts only to hearing-impaired candidates, though it still let the existing selections stand.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995: identifying which specific posts suit which specific disability (Section 32) is a job the appropriate Government must do based on the nature of the work, and the 3% overall reservation (1% each for blindness, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability under Section 33) applies across an establishment as a whole, not uniformly to every single post or cadre. Since the State had rationally identified sweeper-type posts as suitable for deaf/partially-deaf candidates and other posts for locomotor-disabled candidates, this was a legitimate exercise of the Government's discretion and not something a court should second-guess absent proof it was arbitrary. The Court restored the 1999 G.O. and rejected the appellants' claim to be appointed as Safai-Karmis, since that post category was never earmarked for candidates with locomotor disability.
Reservation for persons with disabilities does not mean every disabled person can claim every post; the Government may validly match specific disability categories to specific job types based on the nature of the work, and courts will not strike down such classification unless it is shown to be irrational or arbitrary.
