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 government's Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme gave employees an automatic pay upgrade after 12 and 24 years of service if they had not received regular promotions. This scheme was later replaced from 1 September 2008 by a new Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme, which gave upgrades after 10, 20 and 30 years but under different, generally easier conditions. A group of DDA employees who had already got their first ACP upgrade after 12 years argued they had a vested right to also get the second ACP upgrade after 24 years under the old, more favourable scheme, and the Delhi High Court agreed with them. DDA appealed, while some employees cross-appealed seeking an even more favourable outcome.
The Supreme Court held that merely being "eligible" for a benefit under a government scheme is not the same as having an enforceable "vested right" to it: eligibility only becomes an entitlement once the employer actually reviews the record and grants it through a formal order. Since none of the employees had actually received a formal second-ACP upgrade order before the MACP scheme came into force, they had, at most, an expectation, not a vested right, similar to a candidate on a selection list who has no vested right to an appointment letter. The Court also held that the government, while introducing a new welfare/incentive scheme (which is a matter of policy, not a statutory rule), is entitled to make it effective from an earlier date, especially where it benefits a larger section of employees overall, and courts should not micromanage such administrative policy choices absent clear arbitrariness. DDA's appeals were allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside; the employees' cross-appeals for an even better outcome were dismissed. However, benefits already actually paid out to some employees under later MACP orders were protected and not to be reversed.
Being eligible for a future government benefit or upgrade is not the same as having a legally enforceable right to it, until a formal order is actually passed granting the benefit, the government retains the discretion to change the underlying policy, even retrospectively, as long as it does not claw back benefits already formally granted.
