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 respondent, an Assistant Engineer with the Rajasthan government, was suspended in 1981 pending disciplinary proceedings that eventually led to compulsory retirement, later reduced (through litigation) to withholding of increments and finally to a minor penalty of censure. The government then ordered that his suspension period be counted as duty only for pension purposes, and that he receive no pay beyond the subsistence allowance already paid. He challenged this in a writ petition, which the High Court allowed, directing full wages for the suspension period; the government's appeal against that order failed, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court. A connected appeal involving a similarly-placed employee, decided on the same reasoning by the High Court, was heard together.
The dispute turned on Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which distinguishes between an employee who is "fully exonerated" (entitled to full pay and allowances, Rule 54(2)) and one who is not fully exonerated (entitled only to a proportion of pay as the competent authority prescribes, Rule 54(3)). The Supreme Court held that since disciplinary proceedings against both respondents had ended in an actual penalty (even if minor, such as censure), they could not be treated as "fully exonerated," so their cases fell under Rule 54(3), not 54(2) as the High Court had assumed. However, the Court also found that no notice had been given to the employees before fixing their reduced pay under Rule 54(3), violating natural justice. Rather than remitting the matter back (impractical given the respondent's age of 76), the Court adopted a "middle path," directing that both respondents be paid 50% of the pay and allowances they would have drawn for the period of absence, and allowed the appeals partly on that basis.
A government employee who is reinstated after disciplinary proceedings is entitled to full back pay only if genuinely and fully exonerated; if any penalty, even a minor one like censure, has been imposed, the employer must still follow due process (including notice to the employee) before deciding what reduced proportion of pay to award, and courts may fashion an equitable middle-ground remedy where that process was skipped rather than restart proceedings from scratch.
