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 LawDelhi High Court

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs. Chairman, Town Vending Committee and Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7782-DBDecided 10 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 10020/2026CNR: DLHC010321052026
Justice Prathiba M. Singh · Justice Vikas Mahajan

Background

The petitioner, a street vendor with 90% locomotor disability, had been vending for years near Akshardham Metro Station but was not being allowed to vend peacefully, and the traffic police had also seized his goods. The Court had earlier directed his goods be returned and asked the municipal corporation (MCD) to identify a suitable vending spot for him. MCD said it could only allot him a "mobile" vending slot (not a fixed spot), and police objected that his usual location fell within a National Highway Authority no-vending zone with heavy traffic.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that a person with 90% locomotor disability simply cannot be expected to operate as a mobile, moving vendor, and that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and related Supreme Court rulings, "reasonable accommodation" must be made for disabled workers, including street vendors. As an exception, the Court permitted him to be a stationary vendor and directed MCD's Assistant Commissioner to identify a suitable non-highway location for him within two weeks, while noting that the newly-formed Town Vending Committee would still need to set a general policy for disabled vendors going forward.

Lesson Learnt

A rule requiring all street vendors to be "mobile" cannot be applied rigidly to someone who is physically unable to move around: disabled citizens are legally entitled to reasonable accommodation rather than a one-size-fits-all rule that effectively shuts them out.

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs. Chairman, Town Vending Committee and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware