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.
Scheduled Tribe employees working as Inspectors in the Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate (and, in a connected appeal, as a Subedar Major Stenographer in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police) complained that a backlog of reserved promotion vacancies for the post of Superintendent (and Assistant Commandant, respectively) remained unfilled because eligible SC/ST candidates were not available within the normal "zone of consideration" used for selecting candidates for promotion. Their representations for promotion were rejected on the ground that they were too junior (having joined via inter-Commissionerate transfer) to fall even within an extended zone of consideration. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings that had struck down a 1983 government circular restricting the reserved-category zone of consideration to five times the vacancies: partly ruled in their favour and directed the Government to extend to regular promotions the same treatment given to SC/ST candidates in ad hoc promotions. The High Courts of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana upheld this, prompting the Union of India's appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India's appeals and set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders. It held that the Tribunal and High Courts had conflated two fundamentally different situations: (i) a special one-time drive to fill long-pending "backlog" reserved vacancies (governed by a separate 2004 office memorandum applicable government-wide), and (ii) ordinary "ad hoc" or "regular" promotions made through a Departmental Promotion Committee under separate office memoranda (from 1980, 1983, 1992 and 2006) which prescribe their own zone-of-consideration rules: rules whose validity had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in P. Sheshadri v. Union of India. Because the employees' original grievance was specifically about unfilled backlog vacancies, but the courts below wrongly applied the yardstick meant for ad hoc promotions to what was actually a regular-promotion dispute, they ended up "answering a question that did not arise." Since a valid, judicially-upheld office memorandum already governs the zone of consideration for regular promotions, that framework could not be reopened or overridden merely because it originated in a different context (backlog-filling). The impugned orders extending the zone of consideration for regular promotions were therefore erroneous and were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Rules and precedents developed for one specific administrative process (like a one-time special drive to clear a reservation backlog) cannot automatically be transplanted onto a different process (like the standard promotion cycle) just because both concern reserved-category candidates. Courts and tribunals must carefully identify which specific scheme and grievance is actually before them before granting relief, since blurring the two can lead to answering the wrong question entirely.
