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

The State of Assam vs. Binod Kumar

Not available · 2024 INSC 44Decided 18 Jan 2024
Not available

Background

Under Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual, the Deputy Commissioner (a civil administrative official) was designated as the "Reporting Authority" responsible for initiating the performance assessment of IPS officers serving as District Superintendents of Police in Assam. A group of such IPS officers challenged this rule before the Gauhati High Court, arguing it conflicted with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007, which deals with the internal organization and control of the police force. The High Court agreed and struck down Rule 63(iii) as invalid, and the State of Assam appealed to the Supreme Court, which also sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India given the significance of the issue for police administration nationally.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the relevant service rules, which define reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities as officials who must belong to the same service or department as the officer being assessed. It noted that "law and order" (the domain within the Deputy Commissioner's purview) is only one of about twenty functional areas an SP's performance must be evaluated on, meaning the Deputy Commissioner would not even be competent to assess the SP's overall performance across all those domains. Allowing a civil administrative officer to initiate performance appraisals of a police officer was found to amount to impermissible interference by the civil administration in the internal organization of the police force, contrary to Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act. The Court therefore agreed with the High Court and dismissed the State's appeal.

Lesson Learnt

A state cannot use an administrative manual provision to let officials from a different department control the performance evaluation of police officers where a specific statute reserves internal police organization and control to the police department itself: statutory provisions on institutional independence prevail over conflicting administrative rules.

The State of Assam vs. Binod Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware