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

Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil)Decided 2 May 2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 124 of 2022
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud · Surya Kant

Background

The petitioners, aspiring postgraduate medical students, sought revival of an earlier writ petition seeking a further reduction in the NEET-PG eligibility cut-off percentile so that more candidates could fill vacant PG medical seats. The Union Health Ministry had already reduced the qualifying percentile by 15 points across categories on 12 March 2022. The petitioners argued that around 1,500-2,000 seats were still vacant and that a further 5-percentile reduction (as had been done the previous year) should be granted.

Decision Breakdown

The Court examined data placed on record by the Additional Solicitor General showing that most remaining vacancies were in "pre-para" teaching subjects that typically stay vacant, that the academic term was already running behind schedule, and that the earlier 15-percentile reduction had already made about 25,000 additional candidates eligible. Distinguishing an earlier precedent (Harshit Agarwal) where a percentile reduction had been directed for BDS admissions, the Court held that a policy decision on eligibility criteria falls within the executive's domain and will only be interfered with if manifestly arbitrary. Finding no arbitrariness in the Union's calibrated decision, the Court declined to direct a further reduction in the cut-off and dismissed the application.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not ordinarily direct changes to academic/eligibility policy (such as exam cut-offs) merely because seats remain vacant; judicial review in such matters is limited to checking for manifest arbitrariness, and a reasoned, data-backed executive decision balancing seat-filling against maintaining educational standards will generally be upheld.

Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware