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.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 667Decided 1 Jul 2026
Crl.A. No.-003093-003093 - 2026 (@ SLP(Crl) No.9920 of 2026)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

The appellant was convicted for the murder of a 12-year-old child in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving over 14 years, he applied for premature release under Haryana's 2002 remission policy, but the State rejected his plea, holding that he was instead governed by the stricter 2008 policy under which he had not yet completed the required sentence. The core legal question was whether the 2002 policy (like an earlier 1993 policy) was issued under the Governor's constitutional power (Article 161) or was merely a statutory policy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because a policy rooted in Article 161 cannot be overridden by a later statutory policy.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the 2002 policy was, in substance, identical in structure and origin to the 1993 policy, which an earlier three-judge bench (in State of Haryana v. Jagdish) had already held to be issued under Article 161 of the Constitution. Since a constitutional power cannot be displaced by a later statutory scheme, the Court found that a subsequent ruling (State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar) treating the 2002 policy as merely statutory was per incuriam, because it conflicted with the binding three-judge decision in Jagdish without being referred to a larger bench. Applying Jagdish's reasoning, the Court held the 2002 policy continued to apply to the appellant, entitling him to consideration for release on more lenient terms, while clarifying the ruling applies only prospectively and will not reopen already-settled remission cases.

Lesson Learnt

When a government policy is rooted in a constitutional power (like the Governor's clemency power under Article 161), a later ordinary statutory policy cannot override it, and courts must follow rulings from larger benches over conflicting decisions from equal or smaller benches, even years later.

Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware