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 1988, a dispute over right of way at a traffic light in Patiala led respondent No.1 (an international cricketer) to pull the deceased, Gurnam Singh, out of his car and hit him with fist blows; the deceased died shortly after. After conflicting findings by the trial court (acquittal) and the High Court (conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC), the Supreme Court in its original 2018 judgment held the cause of death uncertain and found only enough evidence to convict respondent No.1 under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), imposing merely a Rs. 1,000 fine and no jail time, since the incident was decades old, no weapon was used, and there was no prior enmity. The complainant filed a review petition, initially limited by the Court to the question of sentence alone, seeking enhancement of the punishment.
The Court declined to reopen the merits of the conviction itself (rejecting the complainant's attempt to widen the review to reconsider whether the offence should have been treated as culpable homicide), holding that the evidence had already been thoroughly analysed and only one blow had actually struck the deceased's head. However, on the narrower question of sentence, the Court held that only a fine was inadequate given that a 25-year-old international athlete had struck a man more than twice his age with a severe blow to the head: such harm was reasonably foreseeable even if death was not intended, and proportionality and deterrence are core sentencing principles that cannot be sacrificed merely because decades have passed or because of the offender's celebrity status. The Court also emphasized the victim's independent right to be heard on sentencing. The review petitions were allowed to the extent of adding one year of rigorous imprisonment on top of the earlier fine, with parties left to bear their own costs.
Even where a criminal offence is proved only in a lesser, non-fatal form (here, simple hurt rather than homicide), courts must impose a sentence proportionate to the actual harm caused and reasonably foreseeable at the time: celebrity status, the passage of decades, or absence of intent to kill are not, by themselves, grounds for token or lenient punishment, and victims have an independent right to press for an adequate sentence.
