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 appellant was accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old girl in February 2016. The victim's father heard a child crying, and on returning home learned that the appellant, a guest at a relative's house, had been seen carrying the child away and that she returned crying with injuries and bleeding, and had been raped. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (as it stood before its 2019 amendment) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment, reasoning by reference to the 2019 Amendment Act (which had raised the minimum punishment for this offence from 10 years to 20 years). The Supreme Court's notice on the appellant's further appeal was limited strictly to the question of sentence: the conviction itself was not reopened.
The Supreme Court held the High Court's approach was legally untenable. Since the offence was committed in 2016, before the 2019 Amendment Act came into force, applying the amended, harsher minimum-sentence provision (which also added the concept of imprisonment for the "remainder of natural life") to a 2016 offence would violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which bars retrospective, heavier punishment than what was prescribed by the law in force at the time of the offence. The Court also found the High Court's own reasoning internally inconsistent. It acknowledged the victim was only three years old, yet still reduced a life sentence to a fixed 20-year term. Holding that the Trial Court had correctly imposed the maximum punishment available under the law as it stood in 2016, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's sentence of imprisonment for life (without the "till natural life" restriction that only applies under the amended law), with both sentences to run concurrently.
Courts cannot apply a later law that increases punishment to an offence committed before that law existed: the punishment applicable is always the one in force on the date of the offence, a protection guaranteed by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
