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 Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 originally fixed reservation at 15% for Scheduled Castes (SC), 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (ST) and 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in central universities, including Manipur University. Manipur University had earlier (before this 2006 Act) been reserving seats at different percentages (2% SC, 31% ST and 17% OBC) reflecting its tribal-majority region. A 2012 amendment inserted special provisos for institutions in the "Specified north eastern region" (which includes Manipur), designed to protect the higher ST reservation percentage traditionally followed there without being forced to also carve out a full 27% OBC quota. Relying on this amendment, Manipur University reverted to its older 2%/31%/17% (SC/ST/OBC) formula. Two SC-category candidates who were denied postgraduate admission challenged this reduction of the SC quota from the Act's default 15% down to 2%, arguing the amendment's special provisos should not apply to Manipur since it did not fall within the Constitution's "Sixth Schedule" tribal areas.
The Supreme Court examined the legislative history, Parliamentary Standing Committee reports and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2012 amendment, and found it was specifically intended to address the difficulties north-eastern institutions faced in reconciling high tribal populations with the Act's rigid national reservation formula. The Court rejected the appellants' narrow reading that the special provisos applied only to Sixth Schedule tribal areas, holding that the amendment's definition of "Specified north eastern region" expressly covers the whole of Manipur, not just its Sixth Schedule pockets. Interpreting the statute's proviso mechanics, the Court held that the reference point for calculating both the SC/ST reservation and the OBC reservation must be the same date (immediately preceding the 2006 Act's commencement) to keep the formula internally consistent; using a different reference date for OBC calculation than for SC/ST, as the appellants proposed, would make the proviso unworkable. Since Manipur University's own affidavit confirmed it had, before the 2006 Act, followed the 2% SC/31% ST/17% OBC formula, the Court held the University was correct to revert to that formula after the 2012 amendment. The appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
When interpreting reservation or quota statutes with special regional carve-outs, courts look closely at the legislative purpose and history behind an amendment: a technical, narrow reading of a proviso that would defeat the very problem the amendment was designed to solve will be rejected in favour of an interpretation that keeps the formula workable and consistent with what Parliament actually intended.
