An application filed under Section 482 BNSS before a Sessions Judge or High Court, seeking a direction that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail — filed when the applicant apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.
Explanation
Anticipatory bail (AB) under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC) is bail in anticipation of arrest — before the arrest is made. It is available from the Sessions Court or High Court (not magistrate courts). The court grants AB in the form of a direction that if the applicant is arrested for the specified offence, they shall be released on bail. The conditions of AB: the applicant must remain available for interrogation if required; they must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses; they must not leave the country without court's permission; and any other conditions the court deems fit. AB may be limited in duration or may operate until the conclusion of the trial.
Statutory Provision
Section 482(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC): 'Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely: — (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact, where any previous application made by him is rejected; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation appears to have been made with the intention of humiliating or injuring the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail.'
A contractual provision agreeing that disputes arising from the contract will be resolved by arbitration rather than by court litigation — enforceable as a binding arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Explanation
An arbitration clause is the contractual gateway to arbitration. Under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement must be in writing — it may be a clause in a contract or a separate agreement. Key elements of a well-drafted arbitration clause: (a) agreement to arbitrate all disputes (or specified disputes); (b) seat of arbitration (place where the legal arbitration is deemed to occur — determines the supervisory court and curial law); (c) institution or ad hoc (institutional arbitration under SIAC, ICC, LCIA, DIAC, MCIA rules; or ad hoc under ArCA); (d) number of arbitrators (sole arbitrator or panel of three); (e) governing law of the arbitration agreement; (f) language; (g) governing law of the contract. A defective or poorly drafted arbitration clause can lead to 'pathological' clauses that create more disputes than they resolve.
Statutory Provision
Section 7(1), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 'In this Part, arbitration agreement means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.' Section 7(2): 'An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.' Section 7(3): 'An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.'
The military forces of the State — in India comprising the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force — under the supreme command of the President of India, with a separate system of military justice (Court-Martial) and specific constitutional and statutory provisions.
Explanation
The Indian Armed Forces are the three wings of the military: Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force. Constitutional provisions: Article 53 — executive power of the Union includes supreme command of the defence forces, vested in the President; Article 309 read with Article 33 — Parliament may restrict fundamental rights of members of the armed forces to ensure proper discharge of their duties; Article 136(2) — SLP does not lie against decisions of Armed Forces Tribunals (court-martial decisions). Statutes: Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Air Force Act, 1950 — all providing for service conditions, discipline, and court-martial. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — established the AFT for appeals from court-martial decisions.
Statutory Provision
Article 53(2), Constitution of India: 'Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.' Article 33: 'Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to — (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or (b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order... be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties.'
A petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking the Supreme Court's special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order of any court or tribunal — universally known as a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Explanation
An Article 136 petition is the formal constitutional name for what is universally called an SLP (Special Leave Petition) in practice. This entry is provided for completeness and cross-references TERM_521 (Special Leave Petition) and TERM_535 (SLP). Article 136 is the broadest appellate provision in the Constitution — allowing the Supreme Court to take any case from any court or tribunal. The Supreme Court exercises this power sparingly, admitting only matters of general legal importance, constitutional significance, or where gross injustice is apparent.
Statutory Provision
Article 136(1), Constitution of India: 'Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.' See TERM_521 (Special Leave Petition) for complete treatment.
A petition filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking any of the five writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose — the most commonly filed constitutional petition in India.
Explanation
Article 226 petitions are filed before the High Court of the State in whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose or the respondent is located. They are the workhorse of constitutional litigation — filed daily in every High Court across India for an enormous range of purposes: service matters (promotion, transfer, termination), tender disputes, environmental issues, revenue matters, PIL petitions, bail, personal liberty, and fundamental rights enforcement. The key constitutional advantage of Article 226 over Article 32: it covers 'any other purpose' beyond fundamental rights — the most expansive grant of judicial review power in India.
Statutory Provision
Article 226(1), Constitution of India: 'Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.' Article 226(2): Territorial jurisdiction of High Court writs.
A petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction — used to correct errors of jurisdiction or flagrant errors of law where an appeal or revision is not available.
Explanation
Article 227 gives each High Court supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within its territorial limits — power to ensure that all subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and according to law. It is broader than a writ (which is typically discretionary and issue-specific) but more restricted than an appeal (which re-hears the case). Under Article 227, the High Court can: correct jurisdictional errors; direct subordinate courts on points of law; set aside orders that occasion gross failure of justice; and interfere where the subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction it has or has exceeded its jurisdiction. Article 227 cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the High Court's view for the subordinate court's view on factual questions.
Statutory Provision
Article 227(1), Constitution of India: 'Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.' Article 227(2): '(a) power to call for returns from such courts; (b) power to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; (c) power to prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept.' The supervisory power under Article 227(1) is inherent and not limited to the specific sub-clauses.
A petition filed directly before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of a fundamental right — the right to file this petition is itself a fundamental right that cannot be waived or suspended except during National Emergency (for rights other than Articles 20 and 21).
Explanation
Article 32 petitions are writ petitions filed directly in the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights (Part III rights — Articles 12-35 of the Constitution). This is distinct from Article 226 petitions (High Court writs) in two ways: (a) Article 32 is a fundamental right itself — the Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain an Article 32 petition if fundamental rights are genuinely engaged; and (b) Article 32 jurisdiction is limited to fundamental rights enforcement, while Article 226 is broader (any other purpose). In practice, parties often file both Article 32 petitions (before the Supreme Court) and Article 226 petitions (before the High Court) on the same subject, with the Supreme Court generally expecting parties to first exhaust High Court remedies.
Statutory Provision
Article 32, Constitution of India: '(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.'
A legal process by which a court or authority seizes or freezes property — either before a judgment (to secure potential execution) or as a proceeding to prevent dissipation of property alleged to be proceeds of crime.
Explanation
Attachment of property in Indian law arises in two major contexts: (a) Civil attachment before judgment (Order XXXVIII CPC) — where the court attaches a defendant's property to ensure it is available for execution if a decree is passed against them; and (b) Criminal/regulatory attachment under PMLA (Section 5 PMLA) — provisional attachment of property by the Enforcement Directorate where it believes it is proceeds of crime. PMLA attachment is particularly significant: the ED can provisionally attach property without prior court approval; the attachment order must be confirmed by an Adjudicating Authority within 60 days. Confirmed attachments lead to confiscation proceedings before a Special Court under PMLA.
Statutory Provision
Section 5(1), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: 'Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding 180 days.'
