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.
The petitioner, a U.S. national and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder since 2015, appeared for the NEET-PG/INI-CET 2023 medical postgraduate entrance exam as an OCI candidate, scored a good rank, and was even provisionally allotted a Pediatrics seat at AIIMS in a mock counselling round. Just before the first real counselling round, AIIMS abruptly reclassified her as an "Indian National" instead of a foreign/OCI candidate, citing a March 2021 Home Ministry notification that bars OCI cardholders from competing for seats reserved exclusively for Indian citizens, forcing her to participate under protest in a category that drastically reduced her admission chances.
The Supreme Court relied on its own earlier ruling in Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India (2023), which had held that the 2021 notification, although worded to apply only prospectively, was in substance "retroactive" and thus arbitrary because it stripped away rights already relied upon by OCI cardholders who had built their education and career plans around the earlier (2005/2007/2009) notifications granting them parity with Indian nationals for entrance exams. Applying that precedent, since the petitioner had obtained her OCI card back in 2015, well before the 2021 notification, she remained entitled to the earlier, more favourable treatment, and AIIMS's last-minute reclassification of her as an Indian National had no legal basis. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing AIIMS and participating institutions to consider her (and similarly placed OCI cardholders who obtained their cards before 04.03.2021) for any postgraduate medical seats still unfilled at the date of the judgment, based on her NEET performance and rank.
When the government confers a right or benefit that people have reasonably relied upon to plan their education or career, it cannot retroactively withdraw that benefit at the last minute without a reasoned, non-arbitrary process, and once the Supreme Court has settled how a particular notification applies (here, only prospectively to persons acquiring OCI status after the notification date), authorities implementing it, like AIIMS, must follow that ruling rather than applying the notification more broadly on their own.
