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.
Five Ayurveda lecturers had been appointed at a private Ayurvedic college in Bihar in 1978-79 and later promoted to Reader/Professor. When Bihar nationalised private Ayurvedic medical colleges under a 1985 Act and took over their college in 1986, a series of Screening Committees were set up over the years to decide which teaching staff would be absorbed into government service. A later Review Screening Committee found these five teachers "unfit" for absorption on the ground that they lacked three years of post-qualification teaching experience on the date of their original 1978-79 appointment, and the Patna High Court upheld their termination on that basis.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court and the Screening Committee had misread the 1986 government notification, which required eligibility (minimum qualifications and teaching experience) to be assessed as of the cut-off date of the takeover (1 June 1986), not as of the date of the teachers' original appointment in 1978-79. It also noted the logical impossibility in the State's position: a person could not be barred from being recruited as a lecturer for lacking prior teaching experience while also being required to have gained that same experience before being recruited. Since all five appellants indisputably met the qualification and experience requirements as of the 1986 cut-off date, their termination was unlawful and set aside. The Court ordered reinstatement: the one appellant not yet at superannuation age was to be reinstated with notional service benefits (but no back pay for the unserved period), while the other four, who had since reached superannuation age, were to have their service treated as continuous and qualifying for pension and retiral benefits (again without back pay), with retiral dues to be paid within three months or carry 12% annual interest.
When a government notification fixes a specific "cut-off date" for assessing an employee's eligibility on nationalisation/takeover of an institution, authorities cannot instead judge eligibility against an earlier, different date (such as the original hiring date) to disqualify long-serving staff: the cut-off date in the governing notification controls.
