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 Bihar government issued a 2015 notification deleting the caste "Tanti-Tantwa" from the state's Extremely Backward Classes list and merging it into the Scheduled Castes list under the entry "Pan/Sawasi," claiming the two were the same community known by different names in different areas. Several petitioners, including the appellant organisation representing Scheduled Caste interests, challenged this before the Patna High Court, arguing the state government had no power to alter the Scheduled Castes list, which can only be changed by Parliament under Article 341 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed all the challenges and upheld the state's notification, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the Bihar government's 2015 notification. It held that Article 341 is unambiguous: once a list of Scheduled Castes is notified under a Presidential Order, only Parliament, not any state government, can add to, delete from, or otherwise modify that list. The state's claim that it was merely "clarifying" that Tanti-Tantwa and Pan/Sawasi were the same community was rejected as a mala fide attempt to bypass the constitutional bar. Because the wrongdoing lay with the State's conduct and not with the individual members of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community who had availed of the (invalid) benefit in good faith, the Court declined to terminate their jobs or claw back benefits already given, but directed that the Scheduled Caste quota posts occupied by them be restored to the Scheduled Caste category, with the State finding a way to accommodate the affected individuals under their original Extremely Backward Classes category.
Only Parliament can alter the official Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes lists notified under Article 341 of the Constitution: no state government can add, merge, or delete castes from these lists on its own, even if it frames the change as a mere "clarification"; and when such an unconstitutional move is later struck down, courts may still protect innocent individuals who benefited from it in good faith while restoring the quota system's integrity going forward.
