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.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Sushant Sharma v. U.T. Chandigarh

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 204Decided 10 Feb 2025
Crl.A. No.-000655-000655-2025
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

The appellant, a father, approached the Supreme Court complaining that he was being prevented from meeting and interacting with his child. An earlier Supreme Court order dated 25 October 2024 had already allowed him to interact with his son, barred the child from being taken out of the country, and froze the child's assets, while the High Court's judgment had relied on a Court Commissioner's report about interactions with the child. Despite substantial compliance with the earlier order, further applications and cross-allegations were filed by the parties, including a complaint by one respondent that she too was being denied access to the child.

Decision Breakdown

The Court allowed the appeal and extended relief, permitting the respondent who complained of being denied access to also meet the child, and appointed a court-approved advocate as a Court Commissioner to arrange CCTV installation at the residence for 96 hours to prevent any untoward incident, with costs to be shared between the parties. It noted that related proceedings were pending before the Guardianship Court under the Persons with Disabilities Act and directed that court to proceed expeditiously, while making clear that its own observations, both in this order and the earlier one, were only tentative and prima facie, not final findings on custody or guardianship. It also clarified that its directions would not stop other courts or tribunals with jurisdiction from passing their own orders in the matter.

Lesson Learnt

In sensitive child-custody disputes, the Supreme Court will use practical, protective measures, such as court commissioners and supervised access arrangements, as interim, non-final steps to safeguard a child's welfare, while leaving the substantive custody/guardianship questions to be decided by the specialised court with jurisdiction.

Sushant Sharma v. U.T. Chandigarh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware