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.
Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were arrested in August 2018 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence/Elgar Parishad case, accused under various IPC sections (sedition, promoting enmity, criminal conspiracy) and multiple provisions of the UAPA, 1967, based on alleged links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Neither appellant featured in the original FIR; they were implicated later based on materials recovered from co-accused. Their bail applications were rejected by the Special NIA Court and then by the Bombay High Court in October 2019, after which they approached the Supreme Court, by the time of this judgment, they had been in custody for nearly five years without trial having concluded.
The Supreme Court examined the UAPA charges (including Section 38, membership of a terrorist organisation) and held that mere association or being described as a member is not enough. The prosecution must prima facie show intention to further the organisation's terrorist activities, which the Court found was not established here at this stage. Applying the principle from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb that constitutional courts can grant bail under Articles 14 and 21 despite statutory bail restrictions (like Section 43D(5) UAPA) where trial is unlikely to conclude soon and prolonged incarceration has occurred, the Court held that nearly five years' detention without conclusion of trial, combined with the weakness of the specific evidence linking the appellants to actual terrorist acts, justified bail. It set aside the High Court's orders and granted bail to both appellants, subject to strict conditions (passport surrender, restriction on leaving Maharashtra, mandatory location-tracking via mobile phone, weekly police reporting, etc.), noting that a breach would allow the prosecution to seek cancellation without returning to the Supreme Court.
Even under stringent anti-terror laws like the UAPA, prolonged pre-trial detention without a realistic prospect of the trial concluding can violate the constitutional right to liberty (Article 21), and courts can grant bail with strict conditions in such cases: mere allegation of association with a banned organisation, without evidence of intent to further terrorist activity, is not sufficient to justify indefinite incarceration.
