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.
A student seeking an income certificate for fee concessions alleged that a village-level revenue official (Talati-cum-Mantri, "A1") demanded a bribe of ₹120 to process his application, of which ₹20 was meant for a peon ("A2"). The complainant instead approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid: after receiving the completed certificate, the complainant gave ₹20 to A2, triggering the raid. Both were convicted by the trial court and the Gujarat High Court under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to a year's imprisonment, though both courts acquitted them of a separate criminal conspiracy charge, having found no demand was proved against A2 specifically.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants. It held that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act only arises once the prosecution first proves an actual demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt: mere recovery of tainted currency from A2 could not resurrect the prosecution's case when the underlying demand by A1 itself was doubtful and unproved. The Court also noted that the ₹20 was handed over only after the income certificate had already been prepared and given to the complainant, undercutting the theory that it was paid pursuant to a corrupt demand: the timing was equally consistent with an innocent explanation (a customary gift given around the Eid festival, as the defence argued). Separately, the Court found the sanction to prosecute A1 was legally invalid, since it was granted by an officer who did not have the power to remove him from his post, as required under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, though the Court clarified the conviction was not set aside on this technical ground alone, but principally because the prosecution had failed to prove its case on the merits.
A bribery conviction cannot rest on the mere recovery of tainted money. The prosecution must first independently prove that a demand for the bribe was actually made; where the timing and circumstances of a payment are equally consistent with an innocent explanation, the presumption of guilt under anti-corruption law does not automatically follow.
