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.
Nakhat Singh, an Airman (Corporal) in the Indian Air Force, applied for the post of Assistant Professor of Hindi through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 2020 without first seeking the permission required under Air Force Order No. 33/2017 before applying for a civil post. After he was selected, he sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge to join the new post, but the Air Officer Commanding declined to recommend his application because he had never obtained the mandatory prior permission. The Armed Forces Tribunal and, on further challenge, the Delhi High Court both upheld the denial of the NOC, finding no evidence that he had submitted any application (online or offline) for prior permission as required. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the requirement under AFO No. 33/2017 to seek prior permission before applying for a civil post is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory pre-requisite, since the Order itself specifies rejection of the NOC as the consequence of non-compliance, and where a provision spells out consequences for non-fulfilment, compliance is treated as mandatory. The Court reasoned that this requirement serves the legitimate purpose of regulating premature discharge of trained personnel from the Air Force, a disciplined force, and that an Airman cannot bypass this requirement and then present his selection as a fait accompli to force the grant of an NOC. Relying on its own earlier decision in Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that a member of the armed forces does not have an unqualified right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to leave service at will, since the interests of operational preparedness must be balanced against individual career aspirations. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the AFT and the High Court.
Members of the armed forces (and by extension, anyone bound by service-specific regulatory procedures) cannot skip a mandatory prior-permission requirement and then expect a later favourable outcome, such as a job selection, to override or excuse that non-compliance: procedural pre-requisites tied to defined consequences are legally binding, not optional formalities.
