Saturday, 3 October 2026

NO POWER TO SUSPEND ADVOCATES

 *Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocates At Interim Stage Pending Disciplinary Inquiry: Allahabad High Court.*


The Allahabad High Court has held that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has no power to suspend advocates at an interim stage pending disciplinary inquiry.


The Court clarified that suspension under Section 35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Punishment of advocates for misconduct) is a final order which cannot be passed during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.


A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Avdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while quashing an order passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh suspending the enrolment of two advocates “till further orders”.


The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Akhilesh Jaiswal, President of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow, and Avnish Dixit, Secretary of the Association, challenging the September 26, 2026 order.


The impugned order recorded that the charges against the 2 advocates were serious because they had allegedly rejected a resolution passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and an order of its Chairman, and published the same in the State's daily newspapers.


Although the matter was fixed for hearing on October 11, the Disciplinary Committee directed that, in the meantime, the enrolment of both advocates would remain suspended "till further order". It also directed that they would not appear in any court of law as counsel.


Taking note of the Council's order, the bench found it "inconsistent with the law".


Referring to Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, the Court noted that, after affording the advocate an opportunity of hearing, the Bar Council can pass the orders specifically contemplated under the provision.


After considering the judgment, the Allahabad High Court said that the procedure adopted by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was not in consonance with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the law laid down in R. Jim.


The Court consequently quashed and set aside the September 26 order. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the disciplinary authority on October 11, 2026.


The Court further directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to furnish any documents the petitioners required but had not yet supplied, provided the petitioners requested them within 24 hours.


At the same time, the Court clarified that the petitioners should not seek unnecessary adjournments. With these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition.


Case Title :  Akhilesh Jaiswal And Another vs. Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Rouse Avenue New Delhi And 2 Others. 

SECTION 138 N.I. ACT

 *CROSS EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT: *

1. Please tell the Court your occupation and monthly income.


2. Do you file Income Tax Returns? If yes, have you disclosed the alleged loan amount in your ITR?


3. What was the exact date on which the alleged loan was advanced?


4. Was the loan advanced in cash or through banking channels?


5. Do you have any written agreement, receipt, promissory note, or acknowledgment executed by the accused?


6. Can you produce any bank statement showing withdrawal of the amount allegedly advanced to the accused?


7. What was the source of funds for advancing such a substantial amount?


8. Were any independent witnesses present when the alleged loan was given?


9. Did you charge any interest on the alleged loan?


10. Have you ever lent money to other persons in a similar manner?


11. What was the purpose for which the accused allegedly borrowed the money?


12. Did you issue any written demand or reminder before presentation of the cheque?


13. Is it correct that no document exists showing the liability of the accused except the cheque in question?


14. Is it correct that the particulars on the cheque were not filled in by the accused in your presence?


15. Did you obtain the cheque as a security cheque?


16. Is it correct that the cheque was handed over blank/signed only?


17. Can you produce any document showing the exact outstanding liability on the date of presentation of the cheque?


18. Have you maintained any account books or records regarding the alleged transaction?


19. Is it correct that the amount mentioned in the cheque does not correspond to any written settlement or acknowledgment?


20. Did you receive the cheque directly from the accused? If yes, when and where?


21. Have you filed any civil suit for recovery of the alleged amount?


22. Is it correct that no written demand for repayment was made prior to depositing the [cheque]


23. Is it correct that the accused had disputed the liability before presentation of the cheque?


24. I put it to you that no legally enforceable debt existed on the date of presentation of the cheque.


25. I further put it to you that the cheque in question was issued only as security and has been misused by you.


*Note*: This is just for informational purposes only and serves as a general guide. Take note that questions may vary based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON RESERVATION SYSTEM IN INDIA

ЁЯУМ *HISTORY OF CASTE-BASED RESERVATION*


◾ *1882*

Reformers like Jyotirao Phule raised the need for reservations.


◾ *1932*

Poona Pact: Agreement between Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi for reserved seats for Dalits.


◾ *Post-Independence*

Constitution provided reservations for SCs and STs.


◾ *1990s*

OBCs included based on Mandal Commission recommendations.


ЁЯУМ *CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR RESERVATION*

      - *Article 15(4):* Reservation in education.

      - *Article 16(4):* Reservation in government jobs.

      - *Article 16(4A):* Promotion for SC/ST.

      - *Articles 330 & 332:* Reservation in Parliament & State Assemblies.

      - *Articles 243D & 243T:* Reservation in Panchayats & Municipalities.

      - *103rd Amendment (2019):* 10% EWS reservation for economically weaker sections.


◾*1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)*

• First major case on reservation after Independence.

• Communal quota in education based on caste & religion struck down.

• Held: Reservation based purely on caste is unconstitutional.

• Led to 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 – Article 15(4) introduced.


◾*2. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)*

• 68% reservation in education for backward classes struck down.

• Held: Reservation should generally be below 50%.

• Caste alone cannot be sole criterion for backwardness.

• Invalidated classification into “Backward” & “More Backward” without proper basis.


◾*3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)*

• Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in govt. jobs (Mandal Case).

• Caste can be a valid indicator of social backwardness.

• Laid down key limits:

      - Total reservation ≤ 50%

      - Exclude creamy layer

      - No reservation in promotion


◾*4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)*

• Upheld Articles 16(4A) & 16(4B) (reservation in promotion).

• But held reservation in promotion is not automatic.

• State must prove:

       - Backwardness of class

       - Inadequate representation

       - Maintaining administrative efficiency

• Reaffirmed 50% ceiling, creamy layer & catch-up rule.


◾ *5. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)*

• Upheld OBC reservation in higher educational institutions.

• Creamy layer must be excluded.

• Reservation is a tool for social justice, not to destroy merit.


◾ *6. Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2011)*

• Reservation in promotion for SC/ST cannot be granted mechanically.

• State must collect quantifiable data to prove:

• Backwardness of community

• Inadequate representation

• Otherwise violates Art. 14 & 16.


◾ *7. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)*

• Upheld 103rd Constitutional Amendment (10% EWS reservation).

• Economic criteria held to be a valid basis for reservation.

• Excluding SC/ST/OBC from EWS does not violate Constitution.


◾ *8. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)*

• 7-Judge Bench held: States can sub-classify SC/ST categories within the reserved quota.

• Overruled E.V. Chinnaiah.

• Sub-classifications ensure equitable distribution of benefits & helps the most marginalized.


◾ *9. Union of India v. G. Kiran (2026)*

• SC ruled: Candidates from SC, ST, OBC & EWS can be appointed to GENERAL CATEGORY POSTS if they achieve the cutoff marks set for general category.

• Reservation availability does not bar merit-based consideration for unreserved posts.



IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS


1. _Ab Initio_ – From the beginning. 

2. _Actio personalis moritur cum persona_ – A personal right of action dies with the person.

3. _Actori incumbit onus probandi_ – The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. 

4. _Actus me invito factus non est mens actus_ – An act done by me against my will is not my act.

5. _Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea_ – An act does not make one guilty unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. 

6. _Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam_: An act of God does injury to no one. 

7. _Alibi_ – At another place.

8. _Amicus Curiae_ – A friend of court.

9. _Assentio mentium_ – The meeting of minds, i.e. mutual assents. 

10. _Audi alteram partem_ – let the other party be heard 


 11. _Bona fide_ – In good faith.

 12. _Caveat actor_ – Let the doer beware. 

 13. _Caveat emptor_ – Let the buyer beware.

 14. _Caveat venditor_ -Let the seller beware.

 15. _Certiorari_ – A writ by which orders passed by an inferior court is quashed. 

 16. _Consensus ad Idem_ - Agreement to the same thing. 

 17. _Damnum sine injuria_ – Damages without injuries.

 18. _Injuria sine damnum_ – Injury without damage. 

 19. _De facto – In fact_ 

       _De jure_ – By law

20. _Delegatus non potest delegare_ - A delegate cannot delegate. 


21. _De minimis_ – About minimal things.

22. _De Minimis Non Curat Lex_ – The law does not govern trifles (unimportant things).

23. _De novo_ – To make something anew, from the beginning.

24. _Dictum_ – Statement of law made by the judge in the course of the decision but not necessary to the decision itself. 

25. _Obiter Dicta_ - Things said in passing judgment.

26. _Ratio Decidendi_ - The reason for the decision.

27. _Doli capax_ – Capable of forming necessary intent to commit a crime.

28. _Doli incapax_ - Inapable of forming necessary intent to commit a crime.

29. _Detinue_ – Tort of wrongfully holding goods that belong to someone else. 

30. _Estoppel_ – Prevented from denying.


31. _Ex gratia_ – As favour.

32. _Ex officio_ – Because of an office held.

33. _Ex parte_ – Proceedings in the absence of the other party. 

34. _Ex post facto_ – Out of the aftermath, or after the fact.

35. _Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus_ – It means false in one thing, false in everything.

36. _Factum probandum_ – The facts that need to be proved.

37. _Factum probans_ – Relevant fact. 

38. _Furiosi nulla voluntas est_ – “a madman has no will" or "a person of unsound mind has no free will".

39. _Habeas corpus_ - A writ to have the body of a person to be brought in before the judge.

40. _Ignorantia facti excusat, Ignorantia juris non-excusat_ – Ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.


41. _Ipso facto_ – By the mere fact.

42. _In lieu of_ – Instead of, in place of.

43. _In personam_ – A proceeding in which relief is sought against a specific person. 

44. _In rem_ - A proceeding or other legal action directed towards a property.

45. _In status quo_ – In the present state.

46. _Inter alia_ – Among other things. 

47. _Inter vivos_ – Between living people (especially of a gift as opposed to a legacy). 

48. _Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium_ – It means it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.

49. _Jus in personam_ – Right against a specific person (or party).

50. _Jus in rem_ – Right against the world at large.


51. Justitia nemini neganda est – Justice is to be denied to nobody. 

52. Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia –The law does not compel the impossible.

53. Lex non a rege est violanda – The law must not be violated even by the king.

54. Locus Standi - The right to bring an action or to be heard in a court. 

55. Mala fide – In bad faith.

56. Malum in se or Mala in se (plural) – Wrong or evil in itself, or crime that is considered wrong in and of itself.’ 

57. Malum prohibitum – In a way, opposite of Malum in se. It means ‘crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

58. Mandamus  – ‘We command’.

59. Modus operandi – Way of working, or mode of operation.

60. Mutatis Mutandis – With the necessary changes having been made, with the respective differences having been considered.

61. Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto – Nobody can be twice punished for the same offence.

62. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – It means no man shall be punished twice for the same offence. 

63. Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or Nemo judex in causa sua or Nemo judex in sua causa – Nobody can be the judge in his own case.

64. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire – A man will not meet his maker (God) with a lie in his mouth, or, ‘no man at the point of death is presumed to lie.’ 

65. Novation – Transaction in which a new contract is agreed by all parties to replace an existing contract.

66. Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege -  There must be no punishment without law.

67. Particeps criminis – A participator in the actual crime/partner in crime.

68. Per curiam (decision or opinion) – By the court. 

69. Per se – By itself.

70. Prima facie – At first sight.

71. Alimony - a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse before or after marital separation or divorce. 

72. Per incuriam – Because of lack of care.

73. Qui facit per alium, facit per se – He who acts through another acts himself.

74. Qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius – He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.

75. Quid pro quo – Something for something.

76. Qui sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus – It means he who receives advantage must also bear the burden.

77. Quo warranto – By what authority. 

78. Respondeat superior – Let the master answer. 

79. Res ipsa loquitor – The thing speaks for itself. 

80. Res Judicata – A matter already judged.

81. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur – It means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

82. Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi – The welfare of the people is the supreme law. 

83. Stare Decisis - To stand by things decided. 

84. Sine qua non – “Without which nothing”. 

85. Suo Motu – On its own motion.

86. Uberrima fides (sometimes uberrimae fidei) – Utmost good faith. 

87. Ubi jus ibi remedium – where there is a right, there is a remedy. 

88. Actus legis nemini facit injuriam - The act of the law does injury to no one.

89. Vis major – Act of God.

90. Volenti non fit injuria – Damage suffered by consent gives no cause of action.

91. Expressio Units Exclusi Alterius – Express mention of one is exclusion of another.

92. Contemporanea Expositio Est Optima et Fortissima in lege –

Contemporaneous exposition is best and strongest in law.

93. Noscitur a Sociis - A word is known by the company it keeps.

94. Ejusdem generis - Of the same kind or nature.

95. Ut Res Magis Valet Quam Pareat - It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.

96. Nemo dat quod non habet - no one can give what he does not have.

97. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure - he who is first in time is better in law.

98. Assignatus utitur jure auctoris - an assignee is clothed with the rights of the assignor.

99. Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi - The law favors alienation to accumulation. 

100. Pendent lite nihil innovature - Nothing new should be introduced during the pendency of litigation.

101. Waiver – Voluntarily giving up or removing the conditions.

Friday, 2 October 2026

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM (BSA), 2023

(Comprehensive Quick-Revision Notes for Judiciary, AIBE & Law Exams)

ЁЯУМ 1. рдкрд░िрдЪрдп рдПрд╡ं рдкृрд╖्рдарднूрдоि

• рдк्рд░рддिрд╕्рдеाрдкрди: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 рдХा рд╕्рдеाрди рд▓िрдпा।

• рд▓ाрдЧू рд╣ोрдиे рдХी рддिрдеि: 1 рдЬुрд▓ाрдИ 2024

• рдоूрд▓ рдЙрдж्рджेрд╢्рдп: Relevancy, Admissibility, Burden of Proof, рддрдеा Electronic/Digital Evidence рдХे рдиिрдпрдоों рдХो рдЖрдзुрдиिрдХ рдмрдиाрдиा।

ЁЯУМ 2. Fact vs Evidence vs Proof

• Fact (рддрде्рдп): рдХ्рдпा рдШрдЯिрдд рд╣ुрдЖ? (рдЙрджा. A рдиे B рдкрд░ рд╣рдорд▓ा рдХिрдпा)

• Evidence (рд╕ाрдХ्рд╖्рдп): рд╡рд╣ рдоाрдз्рдпрдо/рд╕ाрдордЧ्рд░ी рдЬिрд╕рд╕े рддрде्рдп рд╕ाрдмिрдд рдХिрдпा рдЬाрддा рд╣ै (рдЙрджा. Eyewitness, CCTV, Medical Report)

• Proof (рд╕рдмूрдд): рди्рдпाрдпिрдХ рдоूрд▓्рдпांрдХрди рдХा рдЕंрддिрдо рдкрд░िрдгाрдо (Evidence = Material | Proof = Result)

ЁЯУМ 3. Relevancy, Res Gestae & Admissions

• Fact in Issue: рд╡рд╣ рдоुрдЦ्рдп рд╡िрд╡ाрджिрдд рддрде्рдп рдЬिрд╕े рди्рдпाрдпाрд▓рдп рдХो рддрдп рдХрд░рдиा рд╣ै।

• Relevant Fact: рд╡े рддрде्рдп рдЬिрдирдХा Fact in Issue рд╕े рд╡िрдзिрдХ рд╕ंрдмंрдз рд╣ै।

• Res Gestae: рдПрдХ рд╣ी рд╕ंрд╡्рдпрд╡рд╣ाрд░ (Same Transaction) рдХा рднाрдЧ рд╣ोрдиे рд╡ाрд▓े рддрде्рдп।

• Admission: рдкрдХ्рд╖рдХाрд░ рдж्рд╡ाрд░ा рдЕрдкрдиी рд╕्рдеिрддि рдХो рдк्рд░рднाрд╡िрдд рдХрд░рдиे рд╡ाрд▓ा рдХрдерди (Oral, Document рдпा Electronic)।

• Confession: рдЖрдкрд░ाрдзिрдХ рдоाрдорд▓ों рдоें рдЕрднिрдпुрдХ्рдд рдж्рд╡ाрд░ा рдЕрдкрд░ाрдз рдХी рдк्рд░рдд्рдпрдХ्рд╖ рд╕्рд╡ीрдХृрддि।

ЁЯСЙ Rule: рд╣рд░ Confession рдПрдХ Admission рд╣ो рд╕рдХрддा рд╣ै, рд▓ेрдХिрди рд╣рд░ Admission рдПрдХ Confession рдирд╣ीं рд╣ोрддा।

• Police Confession: рдкुрд▓िрд╕ рдЕрдзिрдХाрд░ी рдХे рд╕рдордХ्рд╖ рджिрдпा рдЧрдпा рд╕ंрд╕्рд╡ीрдХृрддि рдмрдпाрди рд╕ाрдоाрди्рдпрддः рдЕрдЧ्рд░ाрд╣्рдп (Inadmissible) рд╣ै, рд╕िрд╡ाрдп рдЙрд╕ рднाрдЧ рдХे рдЬो рдХिрд╕ी рд╡िрд╢िрд╖्рдЯ рдмрд░ाрдорджрдЧी (Discovery of Fact) рд╕े рд╕ंрдмंрдзिрдд рд╣ो।

ЁЯУМ 4. Statements & Opinions

• Dying Declaration: рдоृрдд्рдпु рдХे рдХाрд░рдг рдпा рдкрд░िрд╕्рдеिрддिрдпों рд╕े рд╕ंрдмंрдзिрдд рдоृрддрдХ рдХा рдХрдерди। рдЗрд╕рдХे рд▓िрдП рдЖрд╕рди्рди рдоृрдд्рдпु рдХी рдкूрд░्рд╡-рдЖрд╢ंрдХा рдЕрдиिрд╡ाрд░्рдп рд╢рд░्рдд рдирд╣ीं рд╣ै।

• Expert Evidence: рд╡िрд╢ेрд╖ рдЬ्рдЮाрди (Medical, DNA, Fingerprints, Cyber/Forensics, Ballistics) рдкрд░ рд╡िрд╢ेрд╖рдЬ्рдЮ рдХी рд░ाрдп।

• Hearsay Evidence: рд╕ुрдиी-рд╕ुрдиाрдИ рдмाрддें рд╕ाрдоाрди्рдпрддः рдЕрдЧ्рд░ाрд╣्рдп рд╣ैं, рдЬрдм рддрдХ рдХि рд╕ांрд╡िрдзिрдХ рдЕрдкрд╡ाрдж рд▓ाрдЧू рди рд╣ों।

ЁЯУМ 5. Electronic & Digital Evidence (BSA рдХा рдк्рд░рдоुрдЦ рд╕्рддрдо्рдн)

• Electronic/Digital Records рдХो 'Documentary Evidence' рдХा рдкूрд░्рдг рд╡िрдзिрдХ рджрд░्рдЬा рджिрдпा рдЧрдпा рд╣ै।

• рд╢ाрдоिрд▓ рд░िрдХॉрд░्рдб्рд╕: WhatsApp/Chats, Emails, Server Logs, Cloud Data, CCTV, GPS Data, Call Details।

• Authenticity & Certificate: рдХेрд╡рд▓ рд╕्рдХ्рд░ीрдирд╢ॉрдЯ рдкрд░्рдпाрдк्рдд рдирд╣ीं; рд╕ाрдХ्рд╖्рдп рдХी Integrity, Custody Chain рдФрд░ рд╡िрдзि рд╕рдо्рдордд Certificate рдк्рд░рд╕्рддुрдд рдХрд░рдиा рдЕрдиिрд╡ाрд░्рдп рд╣ै।

ЁЯУМ 6. Primary vs Secondary Evidence

• Primary Evidence: рдоूрд▓ рджрд╕्рддाрд╡ेрдЬ/рд░िрдХॉрд░्рдб рд╕्рд╡рдпं (Original Document itself)।

• Secondary Evidence: рдк्рд░рдоाрдгिрдд рдк्рд░рддिрдпां (Certified copies) рдпा рдЕрди्рдп рд╡िрдзिрдХ рд░ूрдк рд╕े рдЕрдиुрдордд рдк्рд░рддिрдпां—рдХेрд╡рд▓ рд╡िрд╢ेрд╖ рд╡िрдзिрдХ рдкрд░िрд╕्рдеिрддिрдпों рдоें рд╣ी рд╕्рд╡ीрдХाрд░्рдп।

ЁЯУМ 7. Burden of Proof & Presumptions

• General Rule: "He who asserts must prove" (рдЬो рджाрд╡ा рдХрд░рддा рд╣ै, рд╡рд╣ी рд╕ाрдмिрдд рдХрд░ेрдЧा)।

• Criminal Cases: Prosecution рдХो рдЖрд░ोрдкी рдХा рджोрд╖ Beyond Reasonable Doubt рд╕ाрдмिрдд рдХрд░рдиा рд╣ोрддा рд╣ै।

• Presumptions (рдЙрдкрдзाрд░рдгाрдПं):

 * May Presume: рди्рдпाрдпाрд▓рдп рдХा рд╡िрд╡ेрдХ (Discretion)

 * Shall Presume: рд╕ांрд╡िрдзिрдХ рдмाрдз्рдпрддा (Rebuttal рдХे рдЕрдзीрди)

 * Conclusive Proof: рдЬрд╣ां рдЕрди्рдп рдЦंрдбрдирдХाрд░ी рд╕ाрдХ्рд╖्рдп рдЕрдиुрдордд рдирд╣ीं рд╣ोрддा

   • Estoppel (рд╡िрдмंрдз): Representation + Reliance + Change of Position → рдкूрд░्рд╡ рд╕्рдеिрддि рд╕े рдкрд▓рдЯрдиे рдкрд░ рд╡िрдзिрдХ рд░ोрдХ।

ЁЯУМ 8. Witnesses & Examination

• рдХ्рд░рдо: Examination-in-Chief ➔ Cross-Examination ➔ Re-Examination

• Leading Questions: рдРрд╕े рдк्рд░рд╢्рди рдЬो рдЙрдд्рддрд░ рдХी рдУрд░ рд╕ंрдХेрдд рдХрд░рддे рд╣ैं; рд╡िрднिрди्рди рдЪрд░рдгों рдоें рд╡िрд╢िрд╖्рдЯ рдиिрдпрдоों рдХे рдЕрдзीрди।

• Hostile Witness: рдЬрдм рдЧрд╡ाрд╣ рдЕрдкрдиी рд╣ी рдкाрд░्рдЯी рдХे рд╡िрд░ुрдж्рдз рдЧрд╡ाрд╣ी рджे; рди्рдпाрдпाрд▓рдп рдХी рдЕрдиुрдорддि рд╕े Cross-Examination рд╕ंрднрд╡।

• Competency: Child Witness рд╕рдХ्рд╖рдо рд╣ै рдпрджि рд╡рд╣ рдк्рд░рд╢्рдиों рдХो рд╕рдордЭрдиे рд╡ рддाрд░्рдХिрдХ рдЙрдд्рддрд░ рджेрдиे рдоें рд╕рдорд░्рде рд╣ो। рдЕрд╕рдХ्рд╖рдо (Non-verbal) рдЧрд╡ाрд╣ рд▓िрдЦिрдд рдпा рд╕्рд╡ीрдХृрдд рд╕ंрдХेрддों рдоें рд╕ाрдХ्рд╖्рдп рджे рд╕рдХрддा рд╣ै।

• Privileged Communications: Advocate-Client, Marital Communications рдЖрджि рдХो рд╡िрдзि рдж्рд╡ाрд░ा рд╡िрд╢ेрд╖ рд╕ंрд░рдХ्рд╖рдг рдк्рд░ाрдк्рдд рд╣ै।

ЁЯУМ 9. рддुрд▓рдиाрдд्рдордХ рджृрд╖्рдЯि: рдкुрд░ाрдиा рдХाрдиूрди vs BSA 2023

• рдХाрдиूрди: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ➔ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

• рд▓ाрдЧू рд╡рд░्рд╖: 1872 ➔ 1 рдЬुрд▓ाрдИ 2024

• Digital Records: рд╕ीрдоिрдд рдвांрдЪा ➔ рд╡्рдпाрдкрдХ рдПрд╡ं рд╕्рдкрд╖्рдЯ рд╡ैрдзाрдиिрдХ рдоाрди्рдпрддा

• Forensic Focus: рдкाрд░ंрдкрд░िрдХ рдк्рд░рдХ्рд░िрдпा ➔ рд╡ैрдЬ्рдЮाрдиिрдХ рд╡ рдлोрд░ेंрд╕िрдХ рдЬांрдЪ рдХो рдк्рд░рдоुрдЦрддा

ЁЯОп EXAM REVISION FORMULA

Fact in Issue ➔ Relevant Fact ➔ Evidence ➔ Admissibility ➔ Proof ➔ Judicial Finding


LEGAL LATIN TERMS


*1. Actus reus* – the guilty act.

*2. Mens rea* – the guilty mind.

*3. Stare decisis* – stand by decisions; precedent.

*4. Ratio decidendi* – the reasoning behind a judgment.

*5. Obiter dictum* – remarks made in passing, not essential to the decision.

*6. Bona fide* – in good faith.

*7. Prima facie* – at first sight; sufficient to establish a fact unless disproved.

*8. Res ipsa loquitur* – the thing speaks for itself; inference of negligence.

*9. Habeas corpus* – produce the body; a writ to challenge unlawful detention.

*10. Ultra vires* – beyond the powers granted.


*11. Ejusdem generis* – of the same kind; used to interpret lists.

*12. Noscitur a sociis* – a word is known by the company it keeps.

*13. Contra proferentem* – ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter.

*14. Quantum meruit* – as much as he has earned; claim for reasonable value of services.

*15. Sui generis* – unique, in a class of its own.

*16. Amicus curiae* – friend of the court; a person who offers information or argument.

*17. Certiorari* – a writ ordering a lower court to send records for review.

*18. Mandamus* – a command from a higher court to a lower authority.

*19. Quo warranto* – by what authority; challenges to a person’s right to hold office.

*20. Pro bono* – for the public good; free legal services.


*21. In loco parentis* – in the place of a parent.

*22. Inter alia* – among other things.

*23. Sine die* – without a day; indefinitely postponed.

*24. Ex parte* – on behalf of one party only; without the other side being heard.

*25. Ad hoc* – for a specific purpose.

*26. Per se* – by itself; inherently.

*27. Ipso facto* – by the fact itself; automatically.

*28. Locus standi* – the right to bring a legal action.

*29. Res judicata* – a matter already judged; cannot be re‑litigated.

*30. Corpus delicti* – the body of the crime; essential facts proving a crime occurred.


*31. Caveat emptor* – let the buyer beware.

*32. Fiduciary* – a person who must act in another’s best interest.

*33. Estoppel* – a principle preventing someone from asserting a claim inconsistent with prior conduct.

*34. Jus ad bellum* – the right to war; legal justification for using force.

*35. Jus in bello* – law of war; rules governing conduct during conflict.

*36. Pacta sunt servanda* – agreements must be kept.

*37. Rebus sic stantibus* – things standing thus; doctrine allowing contract revision if circumstances change drastically.

*38. Force majeure* – superior force; unforeseeable events excusing performance.

*39. Subpoena* – a court order to appear or produce evidence.

*40. De facto* – in fact; actual situation, even if not legally recognized.


*41. De jure* – by law; legally recognized.

*42. Ab initio* – from the beginning.

*43. In toto* – in whole; entirely.

*44. Mutatis mutandis* – with necessary changes having been made.

*45. Nulla poena sine lege* – no punishment without law.

*46. Nullus commodum capere potest ex sua injuria propria* – no one can benefit from his own wrongdoing.

*47. Ratio legis* – the reason for a law.

*48. Scandalum magnatum* – defamation of high‑ranking persons.

*49. Ultra posse* – beyond ability; cannot be required.

*50. Vicarious liability* – liability for the actions of another (e.g., employer for employee).



SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP)

ЁЯУМ *About:*

◾ *Definition:* SLP is an appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court of India provided under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 

◾ *Scope:* Can be filed against any judgment, order, decree, or determination of any court or tribunal in India, except matters related to armed forces. 

◾ *Nature:* Permits Supreme Court to hear appeals even when no direct right of appeal exists. 

◾ *Discretionary Power:* Supreme Court has complete discretion to grant or deny special leave. 

◾ *Application:* Available in both civil and criminal cases. 


ЁЯУМ *Historical Background:*

◾ *Origin:* Concept derived from the Government of India Act, 1935. 

◾ *Evolution:* Term "special leave" appeared in Sections 110, 205, 206, and 208 of the 1935 Act. 

◾ *Privy Council Connection:* Originally, special leave was granted by the Privy Council's Judicial Committee under His Majesty-in-Council. 

◾ *Constitutional Adoption:* The Indian Constitution incorporated this concept with modifications under Article 136. 


ЁЯУМ *Key Features of SLP:*

◾ *Last Resort:* Filed after all other legal remedies are exhausted. 

◾ *Perceived Injustice:* Usually filed when there is perceived injustice or significant legal issue. 

◾ *Conversion to Appeal:* If leave is granted, the petition becomes an appeal; if denied, no reasons need be given. 

◾ *Constitutional Right:* Supreme Court recognized SLP remedy under Article 136 as a constitutional right. 

◾ *Non Obstante Provision:* Article 136 is a non obstante clause, meaning it overrides restrictions on appellate jurisdiction. 


ЁЯУМ *Scope and Applicability:* 

◾ *Broad Coverage:* Includes final and interlocutory orders from courts and quasi-judicial tribunals. 

◾ *Exceptional Circumstances:* Supreme Court exercises this power in exceptional cases, particularly when legal issues of general public importance arise. 

◾ *Self-Imposed Restrictions:* In criminal cases with concurrent findings of fact, Court exercises restraint unless there's perversity, impropriety, violation of natural justice, or errors of law. 

◾ *No Strict Guidelines:* Supreme Court has refused to establish rigid standards for exercising Article 136 powers, preferring case-by-case discretion. 


ЁЯУМ *Limitation Period:*

◾ *90-Day Rule:* SLPs must be filed within 90 days from the date of High Court judgment. 

◾ *60-Day Rule:* Within 60 days against High Court orders refusing certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court. 


ЁЯУМ *Filing Procedure:*

◾ *Who Can File:* Any aggrieved party can file an SLP. 

◾ *Requirements:* Must provide concise summary of case facts, issues, timeline, and legal arguments. 

◾ *Court Process:* After filing, petitioner presents case; Court may issue notice to opposing party who submits counter-affidavit. 

◾ *Decision:* Supreme Court decides whether to grant leave based on merits. 

◾ *Post-Grant:* If granted, case converts to civil appeal and is heard by Supreme Court. 


ЁЯУМ *Common Grounds for Filing:*

        - Substantial question of law 

        - Gross miscarriage of justice 

        - Violation of principles of natural justice 

        - Violation of fundamental rights 


◾ *Article 136 Provisions:*

       - *Clause (1):* Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order of any court/tribunal in India. 

       - *Clause (2):* Excludes judgments/orders from courts/tribunals under laws relating to Armed Forces. 


ЁЯУМ *Landmark Cases:*

◾ *Pritam Singh v. The State (1950):* Supreme Court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances. 

◾ *Laxmi & Co. v. Anand R. Deshpande (1972):* Court may consider subsequent developments to advance justice. 

◾ *Kerala State v. Kunhayammed (2000):* Declining to grant leave doesn't invoke appellate jurisdiction. 

◾ *N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss (2007):* Article 136 doesn't establish ordinary appeal court but grants discretionary powers for justice. 

◾ *Mathai Joby v. George (2016):* Supreme Court's authority should not be limited but used sparingly and sensibly.