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 LawSupreme Court of India

Sushil Kumar vs The State of Haryana & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 19 Jan 2022
Civil Appeal No. 401 of 2022
K.M. Joseph · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

Sushil Kumar, a police constable appointed in 1995, was recommended by his Superintendent of Police in 2004 for promotion to Head Constable under a 10% quota reserved for outstanding performance, after acts of bravery. However, the Inspector General of Police dropped his name when forwarding the list to the state-level promotion committee. Three years later, in 2007, his name was resubmitted and this time approved by the IG, and he was promoted with effect from 2008. He filed a writ petition arguing he should have been promoted retrospectively from 2004, since the IG had no authority to override the Superintendent's recommendation; both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his claim.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and found that the Superintendent's list is only provisional and not final until specifically approved by the Inspector General, who has express power under the rules to scrutinize, seek clarifications, or send the list back for correction. It rejected the argument that the IG's role was merely to "forward" recommendations, holding that the rule's use of the word "approval" necessarily implies a substantive power to accept or reject after due scrutiny. The Court also held that comparative merit for the 10% quota is assessed afresh each year against that year's competitive field, so being found suitable in 2007 did not mean the same candidate should automatically have been approved in 2004. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the process, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

A subordinate officer's recommendation for promotion is not final where departmental rules require a senior authority's approval after independent scrutiny: that approving authority can decline or defer a name without it being called an unlawful override, and merit-based promotion quotas are judged fresh each year rather than by comparison to a different year's list.

Sushil Kumar vs The State of Haryana & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware