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

Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 620Decided 22 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Hima Kohli · Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

The appellant, a contractual "Assistant Project Coordinator" under a government education scheme, exposed alleged misconduct at a hostel she briefly supervised. She was soon issued show-cause notices over minor attendance and performance issues, and her contract was not renewed on the stated ground of unsatisfactory work. A Single Judge of the High Court quashed this as a disguised, "stigmatic" dismissal made without a proper inquiry; a Division Bench reversed, calling it a simple non-renewal of contract.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's ruling, holding that the applicable service rules required either one month's notice (if this was treated as ordinary non-renewal for inefficiency) or a proper inquiry (if it was actually a punishment for misconduct), and neither was given. Courts must look past the wording of an order to its real substance, and here the order followed directly from show-cause notices alleging misconduct, making it effectively punitive. The appellant was ordered reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages, though the department was not barred from taking fresh, lawful action against her in future if warranted.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot dodge the due-process protections owed to an employee by wording a punitive dismissal as an innocuous "non-renewal of contract". Courts will examine the real reason behind an action, not just its label.

Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware