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.
The appellant, a substitute mathematics teacher at a Railway Higher Secondary School, was repeatedly terminated and re-engaged around school vacations to avoid giving him regular status. After years of tribunal and Supreme Court litigation (parallel to a similarly-situated teacher, Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta), whose case was decided in her favor in 1995), he was finally absorbed as a Primary Teacher in 1998 pursuant to a Screening Committee process, but the railway authorities denied him "continuity of service" credit for his years as a substitute teacher, unlike the other similarly-situated teachers, reasoning that the Supreme Court's 1996 order in his own case had not specifically directed continuity of service. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court both upheld this denial.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's separate claim to be absorbed as an Assistant Teacher (a higher post) as barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata, since he never raised that specific claim in the earlier rounds of litigation despite having the opportunity to. However, on continuity of service, the Court held the authorities misread its 1996 order: that order had to be read together with its 1995 order in the Jayasree Deb Roy case, which had expressly preserved rights under the Railway's Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, and nothing in the appellant's own case had taken those benefits away. Since the appellant had acquired "temporary status" after three months of continuous service as a substitute teacher (under Clause 4.3 of the Master Circular), and the authorities themselves had treated him on par with other absorbees by subjecting him to the same Screening Committee process, denying him continuity while granting it to identically-placed colleagues was discriminatory and legally wrong. The Court directed that his service be reckoned from the date he acquired temporary status (04.03.1990), with pay refixed, all consequential retiral benefits reworked, and arrears paid with 6% interest within eight weeks.
A claim not raised in an earlier round of litigation, though it could have been, is generally barred later under the doctrine of constructive res judicata; but where a government circular grants an employee benefits (like continuity of service) that were never expressly taken away by a court order, authorities cannot deny those benefits to one employee while granting them to identically-placed colleagues.
