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.
Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution allows the State to provide reservation in promotions (with consequential seniority) for SCs and STs where they are inadequately represented in public services. In M. Nagaraj (2006), the Supreme Court held that before granting such reservation the State must collect "quantifiable data" showing backwardness and inadequate representation. Numerous High Court judgments across states interpreting and applying M. Nagaraj were challenged before the Supreme Court, and because they raised overlapping questions, all these appeals (a very large batch spanning matters from 2011 to 2021) were tagged together and heard on common legal issues rather than individual facts. The Attorney General for India helped frame six common questions for the Court to resolve, including what counts as adequate "quantifiable data," what the correct "unit" (cadre vs. group/service) for collecting that data is, and whether M. Nagaraj applies retrospectively or only from the date it was decided.
The Court held that no fixed yardstick can be judicially imposed for measuring "adequacy of representation": that determination is left to the discretion of each State government, since it depends on local, administrative conditions courts are not equipped to assess. On the technical but important question of the correct "unit" for collecting data, the Court held it must be the "cadre" (a specific grade/rank within a service), not the broader "group" or entire "service", disagreeing with and overruling its own earlier decision in B.K. Pavitra II, which had approved data collected by Karnataka's Ratna Prabha Committee at the group level rather than cadre level. The Court also held that M. Nagaraj's requirement of quantifiable data operates prospectively only (from 2006 onward), not retrospectively, because unwinding decades of promotions already made under the old regime would cause administrative chaos and unfairly disturb the seniority of a very large number of employees, many already retired. The judgment expressly clarified it was deciding only these common legal questions, not the individual merits of any tagged appeal, and listed the remaining matters for further hearing.
When a constitutional entitlement like reserved promotion is challenged, courts will scrutinize not just whether the government's justifying data exists but whether it was collected at the legally correct organizational level (cadre, not a broader group); and landmark rulings that would otherwise upend settled service records are often given only prospective effect to avoid unfairly disturbing employees' existing seniority and retirement benefits.
