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.

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 568Decided 2 Aug 2024
Not available

Background

This was a batch of over 30 writ petitions and transfer petitions filed by NEET-UG 2024 candidates alleging that the medical entrance exam, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), had been compromised by a leak of question papers before the exam, along with other irregularities at centres in Hazaribagh, Patna, Sawai Madhopur and elsewhere. Petitioners sought a re-test for the roughly 24 lakh candidates, arguing the sanctity of the entire exam had been undermined.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the chain of custody of question papers, the extent and location of the leak, and expert analysis of the results, and concluded that while a leak of the paper did occur (traced substantially to Hazaribagh and Patna), there was no evidence on record to show it was systemic or large-scale enough to have compromised the integrity of the exam for the entire candidate pool of ~24 lakh students; the Court therefore declined to order a re-test for everyone. It did direct that marks for one ambiguous physics question be revised to award credit only for the scientifically correct option (reversing NTA's earlier grace-marks approach), found no conflict of interest in IIT Madras analysing the data, and expressed serious concern over NTA's conduct and systemic lapses. It directed the government's expert committee on exam reforms to submit its report by 30 September 2024 and to address specific safeguards (secure question-paper logistics, CCTV and data-analytics protocols, and student mental-health support) while leaving individual candidates free to pursue any personal grievances before the jurisdictional High Courts.

Lesson Learnt

Even a proven security breach in a national exam does not automatically mean the results for millions of unaffected candidates must be scrapped. Courts weigh the scale and impact of the wrongdoing against the disruption a full re-test would cause, while still holding the exam-conducting authority accountable and demanding systemic reform.

Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware