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.
Rajini @ Rajinikanth went missing from Puducherry in April 2008, and shortly after, his father Rajaram (who had returned from France to search for him) was himself murdered. During investigation of the father's murder, the appellant Perumal Raja, the son of the missing man's aunt's husband, was taken into custody, and his disclosure statement led police to recover Rajini's dismembered body from a sump tank and a canal, along with the missing motorcycle and other belongings. Perumal Raja was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for Rajini's murder (though he had separately been acquitted in the unrelated case concerning Rajaram's murder), and the Madras High Court upheld his conviction. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the case purely on the strength of circumstantial evidence, since there was no eyewitness or direct evidence. It held that the chain of circumstances: Perumal Raja's disclosure statement leading directly to recovery of the victim's dismembered body and belongings, his complete failure to offer any explanation about how he knew the location of the body (triggering an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act), and the presence of motive: was complete and pointed unerringly to his guilt, satisfying the strict standard required for conviction on circumstantial evidence alone. The Court clarified that his earlier acquittal in the separate, unrelated murder of Rajaram (a different victim, five months apart) had no bearing on this case, as the evidence in the two matters was entirely distinct. It also explained why co-accused persons were rightly acquitted: Section 27 of the Evidence Act (which allows facts discovered through an accused's disclosure to be used as evidence) cannot ordinarily be used to implicate a co-accused merely because they were named or found with recovered articles, unless the disclosure is a genuine joint one. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
A conviction can rest entirely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to guilt, and an accused's inability or refusal to explain facts specially within their own knowledge (like how they knew where a body was hidden) can itself become an incriminating link in that chain.
