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.
This case arose from a Karnataka Police investigation (FIR No. 3/2006, Bangalore) into a criminal conspiracy by members and recruits of the banned organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) to procure explosives and arms, hold secret "Jihad" meetings, and plan bomb attacks and sabotage of public installations across Karnataka to spread terror and communal disharmony. Mohammad Irfan (A-5), along with five other accused, was convicted by the trial court of criminal conspiracy and waging/conspiring to wage war against the Government of India, along with offences under explosives and arms laws; evidence against Irfan included his own inflammatory speech recorded in the group's meeting minutes book, his matched signature on those minutes, and provocative literature recovered from him (though no explosives were physically recovered from him). The Karnataka High Court modified some of the trial court's sentences on appeal by both the accused and the State, and four of the convicted persons, including Irfan, then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined each appellant's individual role and rejected arguments that the evidence (hostile witnesses, disputed handwriting/signature identification, and recovered material) was insufficient, finding instead that the meeting-minutes book (Ex. P-92), corroborated by expert signature verification and witness testimony, along with recovered "Jihad" literature and explosives from co-accused, established a real and dangerous conspiracy. On the legal question of "waging war," the Court held that Section 121A IPC (conspiracy to wage war, or to overawe the Government by force) does not require that any actual violent act occur: the conspiracy itself, if aimed at creating public danger or overawing the government, is enough, and Section 120B (general conspiracy) does not apply once a specific provision like 121A exists. Finding that the scale of the planned violence (bomb-making materials, target planning) justified treating the offence seriously, the Court held the High Court was right to enhance sentences to life imprisonment where warranted, and dismissed all four appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences.
Under Indian law, a conspiracy to wage war against the government or to create public terror through violence is a serious, independently punishable offence even if the planned attack was never actually carried out: participation in planning meetings, recruitment, or possession of provocative extremist material can be enough to sustain a conviction when corroborated by reliable evidence.
