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.
In an ongoing civil suit where the plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right to worship deities allegedly present at the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the trial court (District Judge) directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey (including a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, dating exercises, and study of the structure) to determine whether the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple, while excluding certain sealed areas. The Allahabad High Court upheld this order, subject to an affidavit from the ASI's Additional Director General assuring that the survey would be entirely non-destructive, with no drilling, cutting, or removal of any part of the existing structure. The mosque committee challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing the survey violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 and risked damaging the structure, drawing a parallel to an earlier, separately-stayed carbon-dating request in related litigation.
The Court held that the trial judge's power under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to commission a scientific investigation to assist the court in a suit was validly exercised and not without jurisdiction, and that a Commissioner's report under this provision is not a final or binding finding. It only becomes evidence in the suit, subject to objections and cross-examination, and the trial court retains full control over how it is used. Given the ASI's explicit assurance (through its Solicitor General) that the survey would be non-invasive and would not involve excavation or any damage to the structure, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, but reiterated and reinforced the specific safeguard that there must be no excavation at the site and that the entire process must use only non-invasive methodology. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of, with the ASI's report to be submitted to the trial court, which would then decide the suit's future course.
A court-ordered scientific or forensic survey conducted to gather evidence in a pending civil suit is a procedural tool to assist the court, not a final adjudication of rights, and its use can be permitted with strict safeguards (like a ban on excavation or damage) even in a highly sensitive dispute, since any findings remain open to challenge and cross-examination at trial.
