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.
Dr Jacob Puliyel, a paediatrician and former member of India's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, filed a public-interest writ petition challenging the government's COVID-19 vaccination programme. He sought disclosure of segregated clinical trial data, minutes of the expert committees that approved the vaccines, data on adverse events following immunisation, and a declaration that vaccine mandates violate citizens' fundamental rights. The Union of India and several states defended the vaccination policy and the restrictions placed on unvaccinated persons as necessary public-health measures during the pandemic.
The Court held that courts generally must defer to expert/executive opinion on scientific and public-health matters, but this does not bar judicial scrutiny for manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It held that bodily integrity and personal autonomy under Article 21 mean no individual can be forcibly vaccinated, and any restriction on personal autonomy must satisfy the three-fold test of legality, legitimate need, and proportionality. On the evidence, the Court found the government's vaccination policy itself was not arbitrary and that clinical trial data, and information about the approval process, had substantially been made public. However, since no data was placed on record showing unvaccinated persons pose materially greater transmission risk than vaccinated persons, the Court found the various vaccine mandates restricting unvaccinated individuals' access to public places, jobs, and services were disproportionate, and it suggested (without a binding mandatory direction) that all authorities review and, where appropriate, withdraw such restrictions. The Court also directed the Union to make adverse-event reporting more accessible and to publish clinical trial results for paediatric vaccines.
Bodily autonomy is constitutionally protected, and vaccination cannot be forced on any individual; while courts will not second-guess genuine scientific/policy judgments, restrictions that curtail personal liberty (such as denying access to public places or livelihoods to the unvaccinated) must be backed by proportionate, evidence-based justification and are open to be reviewed and withdrawn once no longer necessary.
