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.

Education LawSupreme Court of India

Naman Verma vs The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 11 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3886 of 2022
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Sudhanshu Dhulia · U.U. Lalit · Bhat · Dhulia

Background

The appellant, who suffers from the learning disability "Dyscalculia," sought a court direction that IIT Bombay admit her to its Master of Design (M.Des) course in the 2013 batch. Under the Bombay High Court's interim orders, she was in fact admitted and went on to successfully complete the entire course. However, when the writ petition was finally heard, the High Court held that her claim of entitlement under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was not made out, and that it lacked the power under Article 226 to formally declare her as having passed the M.Des programme, leaving her in the awkward position of having completed a course without a valid qualification.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's legal findings on the merits of the 1995 Act claim, and did not go into whether her entitlement might now be reconsidered under the successor 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. However, since she had already completed the entire course in good faith under the Court's own interim orders, the Supreme Court invoked its special constitutional power under Article 142 (to do complete justice) to declare that she had successfully completed the Master in Design course and that her qualification would be valid for all purposes going forward. It directed IIT Bombay to hand over her degree and testimonials within four weeks.

Lesson Learnt

Even where a litigant loses on the underlying legal question, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 power to prevent an unjust or absurd outcome: here, ensuring a student who had genuinely and successfully completed a full course of study under the Court's own interim protection was not left without a valid degree merely because of how the litigation over her original entitlement turned out.

Naman Verma vs The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware