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.
The State of Karnataka had issued a 2005 notification acquiring land under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, offering compensation fixed by Section 20 of that Act at 300 times the property tax payable on the land, rather than fair market value. Affected landowners challenged this in the Karnataka High Court, arguing the compensation formula was illusory and that the acquisition (based on a 1982 show-cause notice) had lapsed after 23 years of inaction. A Single Judge struck down Section 20 as unconstitutional but declined to hold the acquisition had lapsed, directing that compensation instead be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; a Division Bench upheld the unconstitutionality finding on appeal. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had dealt with the serious constitutional question (whether Section 20's compensation formula was arbitrary and illusory, and whether the 1973 Act enjoyed protection under Article 31C of the Constitution) in a "cryptic" and "casual" manner, without properly examining the Act's scheme and objects or considering relevant precedent, including a pending nine-judge Bench reference on the meaning of "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b). The Court also noted a new, unpleaded argument raised for the first time on appeal, that the acquired land had never actually been declared a "slum area" as required for Section 17 to apply, which could resolve the case without even reaching the constitutional question, and needed to be examined by the High Court first with an opportunity for parties to amend their pleadings. Rather than deciding the constitutional validity of Section 20 itself, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court judgments, restored the original writ petitions, and remanded the entire matter to a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for fresh consideration, with the earlier declaration of unconstitutionality treated as effaced (Section 20 to remain in full effect) until the High Court decides afresh.
A law cannot be struck down as unconstitutional through a brief, conclusory analysis. Courts must fully examine a statute's objects, scheme and any applicable constitutional protections (such as Article 31C) before invalidating it, and where a simpler, non-constitutional ground of challenge is available and unaddressed, courts should generally resolve that first.
