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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1066
Courts will not infer a concluded oral contract for the sale of immovable property just because the other side's witnesses seemed evasive: the party seeking specific performance must independently and affirmatively prove every essential term was genuinely agreed.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1065
Even in serious, high-value corruption cases, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be used as a substitute for punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the evidence is already secured: bail remains the touchstone principle under Article 21's personal liberty protection.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1067
Preventive detention cannot be used as a backdoor way to keep someone in custody once the ordinary criminal process, including bail, has already run its course on the same facts; the detaining authority must show a genuine, independent risk of future harm, not just recycle the criminal case file.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1068
In land acquisition disputes, courts will readily restore a uniform, fair market rate across similarly-situated parcels, but ancillary compensation heads (like moveable equipment such as tubewells) still require the claimant to prove their case with admissible evidence, not private reports whose authors were never examined in court.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8447
If you are injured while genuinely trying to board or exit a train, you are very likely covered under railway "untoward incident" compensation law, even if you technically hadn't fully boarded yet: courts read this protection broadly in favour of passengers, and contemporaneous official records (station logs, police diary entries) carry more weight than a statement taken from you much later.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8404
Courts will not entertain vague, unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias, and a request to combine cases becomes moot once the other related proceedings have already concluded: genuine grievances about trial delay or procedure must be backed by specific, demonstrable facts, not just repeated litigation.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8403
Anticipatory bail can be granted even in matrimonial cases involving serious sexual-offence allegations where there is unexplained delay in reporting, no evidence substantiating the need for custodial interrogation, and the investigating agency's own conduct (e.g., undocumented "verbal" notices) fails to justify arrest, though this is assessed only for bail purposes, not as a finding on guilt.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8407
In family property disputes, signing a Relinquishment Deed acknowledging receipt of consideration, and then waiting years without challenging it or pursuing your claimed share, will make it very difficult to later prove you were never actually paid; courts expect contemporaneous action (a legal notice, a suit) and corroborating evidence, not delayed assertions alone.
Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8401
A tenant who claims to have paid a large sum toward an informal "mortgage" or side arrangement must be able to prove it with solid evidence (receipts, corroborating witnesses): bare assertions, especially when contradicted by one's own family members under cross-examination, will not defeat a landlord's claim for rent and possession.
6201 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.
A batch of 21 petitions (originally filed as individual writ petitions and transferred cases from various High Courts) sought legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and other personal laws, either by reading these statutes in a gender-neutral manner or by recognising a fundamental right to marry irrespective of sexual orientation. Petitioners argued that denial of legal recognition to queer relationships deprived them of a "bouquet" of tangible and intangible benefits available to married heterosexual couples (adoption, insurance, banking nomination, inheritance, medical decision-making, etc.) and violated their rights to equality, dignity, and autonomy. The Union of India opposed the petitions, arguing that marriage is a matter for the legislature and that recognising same-sex marriage would require restructuring an entire web of personal and general laws.
All five judges agreed unanimously on certain points: there is no unqualified/fundamental right to marry under the Constitution; the Special Marriage Act cannot be struck down or judicially read down to include same-sex couples (that would amount to judicial legislation, properly left to Parliament); and transgender persons in heterosexual relationships already have the right to marry under existing law. On the central question of whether the State must legally recognise queer "civil unions" short of marriage, the Court split 3-2. The Chief Justice and Kaul, J. (minority on this point) held that the freedom to enter into a union is protected under the Constitution and that the State has a positive obligation to recognise such unions and confer entitlements flowing from them, and issued detailed directions (non-discrimination, no forced "conversion treatment," safe houses, police conduct rules) plus recorded the Union's assurance to set up a Cabinet-Secretary-led committee to examine entitlements for queer couples. Bhat, J. (joined by Kohli, J., and separately by Narasimha, J. : the effective majority) agreed that queer couples face real, unjust discriminatory impact in accessing benefits tied to marital status, and that the State must remedy this, but held that the Court cannot itself direct creation of a new legal status like "civil union," since that would require the Court to legislate and violate separation of powers: that task belongs to Parliament and the Executive. All five judges' directions converged on setting up the high-powered committee to study entitlements, and on protective directions for the queer community (against harassment, forced "conversion" therapy, discrimination in goods/services).
The Supreme Court unanimously declined to create a right to same-sex marriage or direct Parliament/the State to legislate civil unions, holding this is a matter for elected lawmakers, not courts; however, it unanimously recognised that queer persons and couples do suffer real, unjust discrimination in everyday life and directed the Union Government to set up a committee to examine what legal protections and benefits can be extended to them administratively, meaning any further legal recognition of same-sex relationships in India now depends on legislative and executive action, not judicial fiat.
