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.
Bangalore University advertised a backlog vacancy for Assistant Professor (English) reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, stating the "Mode of Selection" would follow the 2001 Special Recruitment Rules, which give preference to ST candidates aged 29-40 over even more meritorious candidates. Both the appellant (Chaitra Nagammanavar) and respondent no. 7 were eligible ST candidates; the appellant was more meritorious but outside the 29-40 age bracket, while respondent no. 7 fell within it. The university nonetheless appointed the appellant purely on merit, ignoring its own advertised rule, prompting respondent no. 7 to successfully challenge the appointment before the Karnataka High Court (both Single Judge and Division Bench), which held the university was bound by the 2001 Rules it had itself announced.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that a 2004 amendment (Section 4(1A) of the Karnataka Reservation Act, 1990) required universities to follow a government-specified procedure for filling SC/ST backlog vacancies, and although the government never issued a formal notification, it had repeatedly written to the university directing it to follow the 2001 Rules, and the university itself had advertised that these Rules would govern selection. Given this clear declaration and the government's persistent directions, the university could not later depart from the 2001 Rules to appoint on pure merit instead of following the age-based preference for respondent no. 7. However, noting the appellant had continued working for over four and a half years due to a series of stays she obtained during the litigation, the Court, recognising the unfairness was caused by the university's own inconsistent conduct rather than any fault of the appellant, suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her, while still directing that respondent no. 7 be given the position he had rightfully earned.
When an institution publicly advertises specific selection rules for a job, it is bound to follow them even if it later prefers a different method such as pure merit; but courts can still soften the human cost of correcting such an error, for instance by urging creation of an extra post for someone who worked in good faith for years due to the employer's own mistake.
