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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1066
Courts will not infer a concluded oral contract for the sale of immovable property just because the other side's witnesses seemed evasive: the party seeking specific performance must independently and affirmatively prove every essential term was genuinely agreed.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1065
Even in serious, high-value corruption cases, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be used as a substitute for punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the evidence is already secured: bail remains the touchstone principle under Article 21's personal liberty protection.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1067
Preventive detention cannot be used as a backdoor way to keep someone in custody once the ordinary criminal process, including bail, has already run its course on the same facts; the detaining authority must show a genuine, independent risk of future harm, not just recycle the criminal case file.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1068
In land acquisition disputes, courts will readily restore a uniform, fair market rate across similarly-situated parcels, but ancillary compensation heads (like moveable equipment such as tubewells) still require the claimant to prove their case with admissible evidence, not private reports whose authors were never examined in court.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8447
If you are injured while genuinely trying to board or exit a train, you are very likely covered under railway "untoward incident" compensation law, even if you technically hadn't fully boarded yet: courts read this protection broadly in favour of passengers, and contemporaneous official records (station logs, police diary entries) carry more weight than a statement taken from you much later.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8404
Courts will not entertain vague, unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias, and a request to combine cases becomes moot once the other related proceedings have already concluded: genuine grievances about trial delay or procedure must be backed by specific, demonstrable facts, not just repeated litigation.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8403
Anticipatory bail can be granted even in matrimonial cases involving serious sexual-offence allegations where there is unexplained delay in reporting, no evidence substantiating the need for custodial interrogation, and the investigating agency's own conduct (e.g., undocumented "verbal" notices) fails to justify arrest, though this is assessed only for bail purposes, not as a finding on guilt.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8407
In family property disputes, signing a Relinquishment Deed acknowledging receipt of consideration, and then waiting years without challenging it or pursuing your claimed share, will make it very difficult to later prove you were never actually paid; courts expect contemporaneous action (a legal notice, a suit) and corroborating evidence, not delayed assertions alone.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8401
A tenant who claims to have paid a large sum toward an informal "mortgage" or side arrangement must be able to prove it with solid evidence (receipts, corroborating witnesses): bare assertions, especially when contradicted by one's own family members under cross-examination, will not defeat a landlord's claim for rent and possession.
6201 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 petitioner, an Advocate appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging certain Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order IV, Rule 1(b), Rule 5 and Rule 7(c)) which reserve the exclusive right to file and conduct cases before the Supreme Court to a special category of lawyers called "Advocates-on-Record" (AORs). She argued that this exclusivity was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, since Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 entitles every enrolled advocate to practice in any court including the Supreme Court. The Bar Council of India was heard as a respondent in defence of the Rules.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Advocate-on-Record system rests on a solid constitutional foundation: Article 145 of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules regulating "persons practising before the Court," and Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically preserves this rule-making power to determine who may act or plead in the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the general right of enrolled advocates under the Act. The Court relied on its own earlier five-judge bench ruling in In re Lily Isabel Thomas and other precedents (including Mr. Arun Kumar vs. Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court's Balraj Singh Malik decision) upholding the validity of the AOR system. It held that in judicial review of such subordinate legislation, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the wisdom of the rule; unless the rule suffers from a recognized vice of unconstitutionality, it cannot be struck down merely because it produces hardship in an individual case. Requiring advocates to pass a specialised AOR examination testing Supreme Court practice and procedure was found to be a reasonable, not arbitrary, condition.
The Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record system, under which only specially qualified advocates who have passed a dedicated examination may file and conduct cases before the Court, is constitutionally valid, being rooted directly in Article 145 of the Constitution and expressly preserved by the Advocates Act; an ordinary enrolled advocate cannot claim an automatic right to file cases in the Supreme Court without first qualifying as an AOR.
