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

Ravinder Kumar vs The State of Haryana

Not available · 2024 INSC 684Decided 12 Sept 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant, a doctor running a diagnostic clinic in Gurugram, was raided in 2017 based on a sting operation targeting a woman accused of running a sex-determination and illegal abortion racket; a decoy patient was allegedly sent to the appellant's clinic for an ultrasound to reveal the sex of her fetus. An FIR and a complaint were registered against the appellant under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, and the High Court declined to quash them. The appellant argued that the raid itself was illegal because it was authorised by only one member (the Civil Surgeon) of the three-member statutory "Appropriate Authority," rather than by the authority as a whole.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, holding that the law requires a collective decision of the Appropriate Authority (Civil Surgeon, District Programme Officer, and District Attorney) before a search can be authorised, and that the Civil Surgeon acting alone, even citing urgency, could not lawfully order the raid. Since the entire prosecution was founded solely on evidence gathered during this illegal search, the Court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of the legal process. It accordingly quashed both the FIR and the complaint against the appellant.

Lesson Learnt

When a law requires a multi-member body to authorise an action like a search, a single member acting alone cannot validly do so, and evidence gathered through such an unauthorised search can render the entire prosecution built on it illegal.

Ravinder Kumar vs The State of Haryana – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware