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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Reserve Bank of India & Ors vs A.K. Nair & Ors (2023 INSC 613)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 613Decided 4 Jul 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 529-530 of 2023
Dipankar Datta

Background

Mr. A.K. Nair, an RBI employee with 50% orthopedic disability (post-polio paralysis), sat a 2004 promotion exam for Assistant Manager and scored 92 out of a required 95 marks. He asked the RBI to relax the cutoff for him the same way it does for SC/ST candidates, arguing the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 entitled him to reservation in promotion even for this higher "Group A" post. The RBI refused, saying no reservation applied to promotions into Group A/B posts. Nair won a partial victory in the Bombay High Court, which held that reservation policy should apply to Group A promotions from 2005 onward, but the High Court did not go so far as to order his actual promotion or resolve the marks shortfall. Both RBI and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court; years later, subsequent Supreme Court rulings (including Rajeev Kumar Gupta) had by then clarified that such reservation in promotion for the disabled was indeed legally required.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that its later interpretation of the disability law relates back in time, so Nair did have a valid legal right all along to claim reservation in promotion to Group A posts, and it was "indefensible" for the RBI, as a "model employer," to have refused to condone his shortfall of marks the way it condones shortfalls for SC/ST candidates. Given that the RBI had itself delayed matters by appealing rather than complying with the High Court's order years earlier, and invoking its special "complete justice" power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the RBI to grant Nair a notional promotion effective from 2006 (when he first went to the High Court) and an actual promotion effective 2014, along with back pay and correspondingly higher retirement benefits, to be worked out within a few months.

Lesson Learnt

Employers must apply disability-reservation benefits in promotions the same way they apply reservations for other protected categories, and when a court's later ruling clarifies that a right existed all along, that clarification can be applied to correct injustice suffered years earlier, especially where the employer's own delay in complying contributed to the prolonged litigation.

Reserve Bank of India & Ors vs A.K. Nair & Ors (2023 INSC 613) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware