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.
The State of Uttar Pradesh recruits Instructors for its Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, a Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate, once an essential qualification, was downgraded to merely a "preferential" one, and the rules provided that where applications exceeded vacancies, only four times the number of vacancies would be shortlisted for interview. Instead of following this shortlisting method, the Selection Committee/State imposed its own additional qualifying/cut-off marks not found anywhere in the 2014 Rules, which screened out a large number of otherwise eligible candidates, including the appellants, even though the number of vacancies advertised exceeded the number of eligible candidates. The appellants challenged this before the Allahabad High Court and, having lost, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the rule-making authority had prescribed a specific shortlisting mechanism (calling four times the vacancies for interview), the Selection Committee could not superimpose an additional, unwritten cut-off-marks criterion, doing so was arbitrary and contrary both to the 2014 Rules and their underlying purpose, especially since it left a substantial number of sanctioned vacancies unfilled despite eligible candidates being available. The Court rejected the argument that participation in the flawed process barred relief, since candidates could not have anticipated mid-way that the rules would not be followed. Noting that a large number of vacancies (5,220 out of 7,768 sanctioned posts, per the State's own 2023 legislative disclosure) remained unfilled even years later, the Court held that denying relief merely because the appellants had since aged would be unjust. It allowed the appeals and directed that eligible appellants be considered for appointment against currently vacant posts (with supernumerary posts created if needed), subject to fresh verification of qualifications and antecedents, with appointments to take prospective effect and carry pension/gratuity eligibility but not back wages, seniority, or promotion benefits for the intervening period.
A government body cannot silently add extra eligibility hurdles, like unwritten cut-off marks, that go beyond what its own recruitment rules prescribe; doing so is arbitrary state action, and candidates unfairly excluded by such deviations remain entitled to relief even many years later, so long as vacancies still exist.
