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.
This is a long-running public interest writ petition filed in 2009 that led the Supreme Court to ban all mining in Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga districts of Karnataka after finding widespread illegal mining that devastated forest land. Since then, the Court set up a Court-monitored system requiring all excavated iron ore to be sold only through e-auction conducted by a Monitoring Committee, with a portion of sale proceeds funding environmental restoration, and imposed caps on annual production along with a ban on exporting iron ore/pellets from the affected districts. By 2022, several mining companies, industry associations and Central government ministries (Steel and Mines) had filed applications asking the Court to lift the export ban and allow direct sale of the large stockpile of unsold iron ore without going through e-auction, arguing that the original objectives had been achieved and market conditions had changed; the original petitioner opposed this, citing the risk of cartelisation by domestic steel companies.
The Supreme Court, relying on reports from the Central Empowered Committee showing that repeated e-auctions were failing to sell a huge accumulated stockpile (over 11.9 lakh metric tonnes) and that environmental conditions in the affected districts had substantially improved after years of Reclamation and Rehabilitation compliance, held that the time had come to relax the 2011 order restricting sale methods. It granted permission for the applicant companies to sell already-excavated iron ore stock through direct inter-State contracts without mandatory e-auction, and to export iron ore and pellets abroad in line with the Central Government's general export policy, putting Karnataka's mines on a similar footing to mines elsewhere in the country. The Court, however, declined at this stage to decide the separate question of lifting the annual production ceiling caps, instead directing the Court-appointed Oversight Authority to consult stakeholders and submit its opinion within four weeks, and listed that remaining issue for further hearing in July 2022.
Even in long-running environmental public interest litigation, the Supreme Court periodically reviews its own earlier restrictive orders in light of updated expert reports and changed ground realities, relaxing regulation once its original protective purpose has been substantially achieved, showing that continuing-mandamus PILs remain living, evolving proceedings rather than one-time rulings.
