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.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 1060
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, including on alimony, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual-consent divorce and close out all related litigation in one stroke, without requiring the usual statutory waiting period.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1061
In long-running, complex litigation involving apportioned government liabilities across states, the Supreme Court can use a mechanism like a retired-judge committee plus periodic compliance affidavits to bring genuine finality, including firm timelines, transparency obligations, and interest for delayed payment, rather than leaving matters open-ended.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1062
In an "as is where is" liquidation auction, a bidder who voluntarily accepts the auction terms cannot later resile from a forfeiture clause by citing regulatory caps or after-the-fact excuses for non-payment: courts will enforce the auction notice's own conditions.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8338-DB
Once someone is released from custody because the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest, the police cannot simply re-arrest them by adding new charges: a specific, court-supervised procedure with senior-officer accountability must be followed, or the re-arrest itself becomes illegal.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8308
In economic-offence cases, bail can still be granted where the method used to quantify the alleged financial evasion is not adequately justified, and where the apprehension of re-offending is speculative rather than evidence-based.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8323
A parole claim must be backed by a genuine, verifiable application to the competent jail authority: courts will scrutinise irregularities like an incomplete address, an unexplained thumb mark, or reliance on a mere friend's affidavit rather than close family.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8337
Courts can grant short, strictly time-bound interim bail purely on humanitarian/compassionate grounds (such as caring for a seriously ill family member), even while a case remains pending trial and an earlier bail plea has failed.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8312
Courts will not repeatedly re-examine a bail plea already rejected on merits unless the applicant can point to a genuine change in circumstances since the earlier order.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8334
Under the no-fault compensation scheme for railway accidents, a valid ticket-holder injured while attempting to board a train, even carelessly, is generally entitled to compensation unless the railway can show a deliberate, conscious exposure to danger, not mere negligence.
6171 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 group of doctors working as Assistant Professors at an ESIC medical college sought faster promotion to Associate Professor under the Central Government's "Dynamic Assured Career Progression" (DACP) Scheme, which allows promotion after just two years of service. ESIC, however, argued that its own statutory Recruitment Regulations (first from 2008, requiring four years' service, then from 2015, requiring five years) governed the promotions of its teaching staff, not the DACP Scheme, which was really meant for regular Central Health Service officers. A Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court had both ruled in favour of the doctors, partly because ESIC's own counsel had earlier and mistakenly conceded that the 2015 Regulations did not apply.
The Supreme Court held that statutory regulations framed by a body like ESIC under its enabling Act have the force of law and prevail over an executive instruction or office memorandum such as the DACP Scheme, which can only supplement, never override, a valid statutory rule. Since the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 were shown (via their own preamble) to have been issued with the Central Government's prior approval as required by Section 17(2) of the ESI Act, they validly superseded the DACP Scheme for ESIC's teaching cadre. The Court also held that a mistaken concession of law made by counsel before a Tribunal does not bind the government body or estop it from later asserting the correct legal position, and that promises made in an employment advertisement cannot override the applicable service regulations. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that the seniority list of ESIC's teaching cadre reflect promotions calculated under the 2015 Regulations, not the DACP Scheme, while clarifying that the employees would not lose the benefit of pay fixation for their prior years of service.
Where a government body's own binding regulations conflict with a general executive policy or scheme, the statutory regulations prevail; and a mistaken legal concession made by a lawyer in earlier proceedings does not permanently bind their client, especially a public authority, on a pure question of law.
