Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

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.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal 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 ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

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.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

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.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

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.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

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.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

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.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 663Decided 1 Jul 2026
Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2026
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

This is an ongoing, Supreme Court-supervised matter concerning street vendors and encroachment in Chandigarh, in which the Court has been reviewing periodic compliance affidavits from the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation and Administration on relocating vendors to designated zones, cancelling licenses for non-payment of fees, and providing basic amenities at vending sites. In this hearing, the amicus curiae raised concerns that the Administration's anti-encroachment drives (thousands of challans issued, over 6,800 vending licences cancelled) were not being matched by genuine rehabilitation of displaced vendors, and separately challenged a 2020, COVID-era notification that had broadened who counts as an "Essential Service Provider" entitled to special vending privileges.

Decision Breakdown

The Court issued a detailed set of directions to the Chandigarh authorities: promptly shift licensed vendors to identified zones with proper signage and public amenities, issue smart identity cards linked to police stations, install CCTV cameras within six months, set up helplines, and decide all pending vendor appeals within 60 days (30 days for future ones). Separately, agreeing with the amicus that the pandemic-era justification no longer existed, the Court quashed the 17 July 2020 notification that had expanded the "Essential Service Provider" category to include general food vendors (such as those selling chhole bhature) and extended their permitted trading hours, restoring the original, narrower 2018 bye-law definition.

Lesson Learnt

Special regulatory concessions granted to meet an emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, are not meant to be permanent. Once the emergency that justified them has passed, courts can and will withdraw such relaxations, even as they continue to hold civic authorities to concrete, time-bound obligations toward the livelihoods of those affected by enforcement action.

Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware