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.
Manilal applied for a Teacher Grade-III post under a 2017 Rajasthan recruitment advertisement. He had 44.58% marks in graduation but had taken admission to his B.Ed course in October 2009, before the National Council for Teacher Education's stricter minimum-marks requirement (50%, later reduced by later rules) came into force. His candidature was rejected for not meeting the 45% graduation cut-off, and his writ petition and writ appeal against this rejection were dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court, which relied on a different precedent (Dinesh Chandra Damor) involving a candidate who joined the B.Ed course much later, after the relevant cut-off date.
The Supreme Court noted that a subsequent NCTE clarification (2019), issued following the Court's own earlier ruling in Neeraj Kumar Rai, exempted candidates who had taken B.Ed admission before 29 July 2011 from the minimum-marks requirement, and that in an on-point precedent (Ankul Singhal), the Rajasthan High Court itself had held it discriminatory under Article 14 to treat students admitted in the same academic session (2009-10) differently based merely on which round of counselling they joined. Manilal's case was materially identical to that of "Rakesh Gaur," a similarly-situated candidate who had already been granted relief by the High Court on this very reasoning: Manilal's admission (23.10.2009) even predated Gaur's. The Court held the Division Bench erred by instead applying the unrelated "Dinesh Chandra Damor" precedent (where the candidate joined over a year later, after the cut-off). It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that Manilal's earlier interim appointment be treated as a regular appointment with consequential benefits (though without back wages for the non-working period).
Public authorities and courts cannot treat similarly-situated candidates from the same admission batch differently under the same recruitment rules. If one candidate in an identical position has already been granted relief, denying the same relief to another in materially the same facts violates the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.
