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.
Brigadier Javed Iqbal, a 33-year Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch officer, was recommended for promotion to Major General by the Army's No.1 Selection Board in October 2020 after scoring the highest marks (94.482) among candidates, despite being in a "SHAPE-2" low medical category for hypertension. The Chief of Defence Staff queried and then cleared his medical status before the competent authority approved the promotion, but the Military Secretary raised objections, and the promotion benefit was never actually granted, prompting the officer to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which ruled in his favour and ordered the promotion implemented with effect from the declassification date. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against the AFT's order.
The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 67(b) of the Defence Service Regulations, an officer in SHAPE-2 medical category is not automatically barred from promotion: such an officer can still be considered if a Medical Board finds him capable of performing the normal duties of the higher rank, and the Selection Board is required to weigh both medical classification and employability in the specific role. Since the officer's only medical limitation concerned high-altitude postings (above 9000 feet) and his JAG duties were primarily headquarters-based, and since the Selection Board, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the competent authority had all consciously reviewed his medical records before clearing him, the Court found the Military Secretary's repeated objections unjustified. It also noted that a subsequent Medical Board (in September 2021) had upgraded the officer's category to SHAPE-1 after his blood pressure was found controlled, further supporting that there was no valid ground for interference, and the appeal was dismissed with the AFT's order to stand and be implemented forthwith.
In service promotion matters involving borderline medical fitness, courts will defer to a properly constituted Selection Board's considered judgment (which weighs medical classification against the actual duties and employability of the post) rather than allow a single reviewing authority to override that decision on medical grounds alone, especially where the medical concern is job-specific and not a general incapacity.
