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.
Following the death by burning of Qureshi Sahidul Islam in 2009, an FIR alleged foul play against his wife and, separately, against the appellant, Vikramjit Kakati, a colleague and friend of the deceased. The only allegation against the appellant was that he had conspired to remove evidence from the scene. In fact, on learning of the burn injuries from the deceased's wife, the appellant had driven the deceased to a nursing home and then arranged his transfer to a larger hospital, where he later died. A trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 302/120-B (murder/criminal conspiracy) and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC, and the Gauhati High Court declined to interfere when the appellant sought discharge, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant from all charges. Applying the settled legal test for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. (drawn from P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI) (that a charge should be framed only if the material on record raises at least a "grave suspicion" against the accused, not mere suspicion) the Court found that the charge-sheet contained no prima facie material connecting the appellant to any motive, to the alleged conspiracy, or to the alleged destruction of evidence. The sole eyewitness, the household's domestic help, never implicated the appellant in either her police statement or her statement to a magistrate, and instead confirmed that he had helped take the deceased to hospital. Even the complainant's own FIR did not name the appellant, only expressing a "strong suspicion" later. Both the trial court and the High Court had failed to actually scrutinize whether any evidence existed against him before allowing the charges to stand. The Court quashed both lower orders and discharged the appellant, while clarifying that its findings were confined to him alone and that the trial against the other accused would proceed independently on its own merits.
At the stage of framing criminal charges, courts must actually examine whether the prosecution's own material shows at least a grave suspicion against each accused individually, helping an injured person get medical treatment, or being present near a crime scene, is not evidence of guilt, and an accused should not be forced to endure a full criminal trial where the charge-sheet discloses no real evidentiary link to the alleged offence.
