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.
The appellant's mother held a government-allotted "fair price shop" (a ration shop under the public distribution system) in a village in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh. After her mother died, the appellant: a married daughter who had continued living in the family home and had become the sole earning member supporting her four sisters, including one who is visually impaired: applied to take over the shop as a dependent. Her application was rejected solely because a UP government order defined "family" eligible for such compassionate appointment to exclude "married daughters," a rejection upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner, and eventually the Allahabad High Court (though the High Court itself flagged the issue as one of general constitutional importance given conflicting High Court views nationally).
The Supreme Court held that excluding married daughters from the definition of dependent "family" members eligible for compassionate appointment violated the constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15(1)), because marital status bears no rational connection to actual financial dependency, which is the true purpose of the welfare scheme. Interpreting the government order purposively, the Court held that the word "daughters" must be read to include a married daughter who can prove she is actually dependent on the deceased dealer, is a local resident, and meets the other eligibility conditions, rather than being automatically excluded merely for being married. The Court expressly approved the contrary High Court decisions (from Allahabad's own Vimla Srivastava case, and from Bombay, Karnataka, and Calcutta) that had already rejected such exclusion, and overruled the Allahabad High Court's own prior decisions (Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata) that had upheld it. Finding that the appellant met all the practical eligibility criteria, the Court quashed the rejection orders and directed the authorities to allot her the shop within four weeks.
A government welfare or compassionate-appointment scheme cannot deny benefits to an eligible woman purely because she is married: such a rule amounts to unconstitutional gender-based discrimination, and courts will read "dependency," not marital status, as the real test for eligibility.
