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 appellants were candidates who cleared the Jharkhand Public Service Commission's 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016, were appointed, completed probation, and received regular postings. Years later, other candidates challenged the Commission's interpretation of the exam's qualifying-marks rule before the High Court, arguing that candidates needed to individually clear the minimum qualifying marks in each paper of the main examination, not just achieve the qualifying aggregate: a Single Judge accepted this view and cancelled the appointed candidates' appointments, and a Division Bench upheld the cancellation. The appointed candidates then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the advertisement and recruitment rules were genuinely ambiguous and the Commission's own long-followed interpretation (aggregate marks, not paper-wise) should not be overturned years after appointments were made.
The Supreme Court held that the wording of the advertisement (Clauses 12 and 13) was genuinely ambiguous as between requiring minimum marks in each paper versus an aggregate qualifying score, and that Rule 16 of the applicable 1951 Recruitment Rules, when read as a whole, supported reading the proviso as applying to aggregate marks across the examination rather than paper-by-paper. Relying on its earlier ruling in N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that when a recruiting body's rules are ambiguous and it has consistently followed one reasonable interpretation over time, courts should not upset that settled practice, especially where doing so would unsettle candidates who have already been appointed, completed probation, and worked for years. The Court found it would be unjust to allow the "U-turn" the High Court's ruling would force, given the appointed candidates were not at fault and had already built settled careers on the strength of their selection. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment cancelling their appointments was quashed and set aside; a related transfer petition was also dismissed.
When recruitment rules or an exam advertisement are genuinely ambiguous, and the recruiting authority has consistently followed one reasonable interpretation, courts will be reluctant to retroactively invalidate appointments made under that interpretation years later, especially where doing so would unfairly penalize candidates who bore no responsibility for the ambiguity and have since built their careers on the appointment.
