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 Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, a Constitution Bench struck down Section 497 IPC (the offence of adultery) and Section 198(2) CrPC as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21. The Union of India then filed this application asking the Court to clarify that the judgment does not stop the armed forces from taking disciplinary action against personnel for adulterous or "promiscuous" conduct under their own laws, for example Sections 45 (unbecoming conduct) and 63 (violation of good order and military discipline) of the Army Act, 1950, and the corresponding provisions of the Navy and Air Force Acts. The Government said that officers facing such action were arguing that the Joseph Shine judgment barred it, leading to a pile-up of cases and confusion that was harming discipline. Intervenors and the original petitioner's counsel argued that no clarification was needed and that each case should be decided on its own facts; the petitioner's counsel nonetheless fairly conceded that the striking down of Section 497 did not prevent the authorities from proceeding under Section 45 of the Army Act.
The Court noted the general rule (Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban; Supertech Ltd. vs. Emerald Court) that "miscellaneous applications" cannot be used as a disguised review to modify a final judgment. But here it found that the application did not seek any modification. It merely asked what the judgment did and did not cover. The Court clarified that Joseph Shine was concerned only with the constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC and Section 198(2) CrPC; it had no occasion to consider the armed forces legislation or Article 33 (which allows Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for members of the armed forces to maintain discipline). It also observed that the judgment did not approve of adultery. It had been described as a moral wrong and a civil wrong, and it remains a ground for divorce. The Court therefore clarified that the 2019 judgment "was not at all concerned with the effect and operation" of Sections 45 and 63 of the Army Act or the corresponding provisions of the other Acts, and disposed of the applications without pronouncing on how those provisions should apply in any given case.
Decriminalising adultery for the general public did not make it consequence-free everywhere: members of the armed forces remain subject to their own service laws, which can treat adulterous conduct as "unbecoming" or prejudicial to discipline. More broadly, a Supreme Court judgment decides only the questions actually before it. It should not be read as settling issues it never examined.
