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

Parvez Parwaz & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Criminal AppealDecided 26 Aug 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1343 of 2022
N.V. Ramana · Hima Kohli · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

Following the 2007 Gorakhpur riots, a case was registered alleging that a hate speech by an individual (then a Member of Parliament) contributed to the violence, and the matter was investigated by the UP Police's Crime Branch/CID. The complainants filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking an independent investigation, additional charges, disciplinary action against officials, and security, but the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the investigation or in the refusal to grant sanction for prosecution. The complainants appealed to the Supreme Court, but by the time of the appeal, the accused person had since become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and the appellants pressed only the specific legal question of who, the Governor or someone else, was empowered to grant sanction for his prosecution in that changed situation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that events had overtaken the case: the CD recording that formed the basis of the allegation was found by a forensic laboratory to have been tampered with and edited, and the police investigation itself had already concluded with a closure report in 2017 (with a protest petition against that closure still pending before the trial court). Because there was no live prosecution for which "sanction" was even currently required, the Court held that deciding the abstract legal question of who could grant sanction in such a scenario would now be a purely academic exercise. It therefore dismissed the appeal without ruling on the sanction question, but explicitly left that legal question open to be decided in a future case where it would actually matter.

Lesson Learnt

Courts generally decline to decide significant legal questions in the abstract once the underlying facts (here, a closed investigation and tampered evidence) have made the dispute moot: such questions are left open for a case where the answer will actually affect the outcome.

Parvez Parwaz & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware