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 was accused of waylaying a car and robbing Rs. 22 lakhs in 2011, during which one occupant of the car was shot dead. Years into the trial, the appellant claimed he had been a juvenile at the time of the offence, relying on a school leaving certificate and a later-obtained birth certificate. The trial court, relying on an ossification test putting his age at 23-24 years combined with margin-of-benefit rules, initially found him juvenile, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned this, relying instead on a Uttar Pradesh "family register" entry showing an earlier birth year, and directed he stand trial as an adult.
The Supreme Court examined each document in turn: the birth certificate was rejected because it was obtained only after the juvenility application was filed and years after birth, in violation of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act's prescribed timelines; the school leaving certificate was found unreliable because the school named in it did not exist at that location according to a government certificate, and the head teacher's testimony raised further doubts; and the ossification test was held not conclusive, since medical opinion on age carries an acknowledged margin of error and a Board member admitted a 30-32-year-old could show the same bone fusion as a 22-year-old. The Court held that a family register, though not itself a birth certificate under the juvenility Rules, is a relevant public document maintained under statutory rules and entitled to a presumption of correctness under the Evidence Act, so the High Court could rely on it. Concluding that the appellant had approached the court with fabricated and unreliable documents to falsely claim juvenility, the Court held that the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot go to someone relying on dishonest evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
A claim of juvenility must be proved through genuine, timely-created documents. Courts will scrutinise the authenticity of school and birth records rather than accept them at face value, and a family register, while not a birth certificate, can still be relied upon as a public document; medical (ossification) age tests are only a guiding factor, never conclusive proof.
