The revocation of bail by a court where the accused violates bail conditions, abuses liberty, tampers with evidence, or other compelling grounds arise after bail was granted.
Explanation
Cancellation of bail is distinct from refusal of bail. Bail once granted may be cancelled under BNSS Section 483 where: (a) the accused violates any condition of the bail; (b) the accused commits a fresh offence; (c) there is evidence of tampering with witnesses or evidence; (d) there is a flight risk that materialises; or (e) new facts emerge making continued bail dangerous to justice. The test for cancellation is higher than for refusal — mere likelihood is not enough; there must be concrete grounds showing that the accused is abusing liberty. The Supreme Court distinguishes between 'cancelling bail' and 'not granting bail in the first place.'
Statutory Provision
Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 'A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody on an application moved by the officer-in-charge of the police station or by the complainant.'
A case omitted from a statute — the principle that a court cannot fill a legislative gap by reading something into a statute that the legislature chose not to include; the omission must be remedied by the legislature, not by judicial legislation.
Explanation
Casus omissus (Latin: 'omitted case') refers to a situation that the legislature failed to provide for in a statute — a gap in the law. The traditional rule is that courts cannot fill this gap by reading into the statute what is not there — that would be judicial legislation, substituting the court's judgment for Parliament's. If the legislature omitted a provision, courts must presume the omission was deliberate and decline to extend the statute by implication. The remedy for a casus omissus is a legislative amendment, not judicial interpretation. However, courts have sometimes distinguished between 'deliberate omissions' (true casus omissus) and 'inadvertent omissions' (drafting errors) — the latter may be corrected by interpretive tools like purposive construction.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — casus omissus is a judge-made interpretive principle. Frequently cited in Indian courts: Supreme Court in <em>State of UP v. Vijay Anand Maharaj</em> AIR 1963 SC 946: 'It is a well-settled principle of construction that a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and that a statute should be so construed as to give effect to all its provisions.' The Supreme Court has also held that if the purposive construction can fill the gap without judicial legislation, it is preferred over treating the gap as a true casus omissus.
The bundle of material facts that gives a plaintiff the right to sue and obtain relief from the court.
Explanation
Every fact material for the plaintiff to prove to establish the right to the relief claimed — if the plaint discloses no cause of action, it shall be rejected.
Statutory Provision
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order VII Rule 1(e) (plaint must disclose cause of action); Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint disclosing no cause of action).
A formal notice lodged with a court by a person (the caveator) warning that no order shall be made in a specified matter without first giving the caveator an opportunity to be heard.
Explanation
A caveat under Section 148A CPC is a procedural device that ensures a party is heard before an adverse order is made. The caveator files a caveat stating that if any application is made against them in the specified suit/proceeding, the court must first serve notice on the caveator and hear them before making any order. A caveat has a lifespan of 90 days (Section 148A(4) CPC) — after which it lapses and must be refiled if the threat of an adverse order continues. Caveats are commonly filed by persons who anticipate that their opponents may seek ex parte orders against them.
Statutory Provision
Section 148A(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (inserted by CPC Amendment Act 1976): 'Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.' Section 148A(3): 'Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the person by whom it has been lodged shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due, on the person by or on whose behalf the application has been or is expected to be made.'
The Latin principle 'let the buyer beware' — imposing on the buyer the duty to examine goods before purchase and accept the risk of defects that could have been discovered through reasonable inspection.
Explanation
Caveat emptor is codified in Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 — there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness of goods for any particular purpose, subject to exceptions. The doctrine holds that it is the buyer's responsibility to inspect, examine, and determine whether goods are suitable for their purpose before buying. The doctrine has been significantly eroded in modern consumer law — the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Order, implied warranties in consumer contracts, and product liability have all shifted the burden toward the seller.
Statutory Provision
Section 16, Sale of Goods Act, 1930: 'Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, save as provided in this section.' [Exceptions: fitness for purpose where buyer discloses reliance, merchantable quality for goods sold by description, usage of trade.]
The modern counterpart to caveat emptor — 'let the seller beware' — imposing on sellers the duty to disclose defects, ensure product safety, and be liable for harm caused by defective products.
Explanation
Caveat venditor is not a codified doctrine under Indian law but reflects the shift in commercial law from buyer responsibility to seller responsibility. Modern consumer protection legislation — the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Section 83-87 on product liability), the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, BIS standards, and mandatory disclosure requirements — collectively impose on sellers a duty to ensure product quality, disclose material defects, and be liable for defective products causing harm. The doctrine is particularly relevant in product liability law, where strict liability (without proof of negligence) may be imposed on sellers and manufacturers.
Statutory Provision
No single statutory provision defines 'caveat venditor' — it is a legal concept reflecting modern product liability law. Section 83, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 'A product seller who is not a product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if — (a) he has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling of a product that caused harm; (b) he has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm; (c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer and the product failed to conform to such express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm.'
A parliamentary motion expressing strong disapproval of the conduct, policy, or action of a specific minister or the government, without necessarily requiring the resignation of the government.
Explanation
A censure motion is less drastic than a no confidence motion — it expresses disapproval of specific conduct (a minister's action, a particular policy) rather than withdrawing confidence in the entire government. The Rajya Sabha can pass censure motions against the government (it cannot pass no confidence motions as the Council of Ministers is not responsible to the Rajya Sabha). In the Lok Sabha, a censure motion may target a specific minister or a specific government decision. If passed in the Lok Sabha, the affected minister is expected (though not constitutionally required) to resign — but the government does not fall unless a no confidence motion is separately passed.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — censure motions are governed by Rules of Procedure of each House. Lok Sabha Rule 184 (Rule providing for a motion expressing disapproval) provides the procedural basis, though censure motions are conventionally distinct from no confidence motions in purpose and effect.
A petition filed before a superior court seeking a writ of certiorari — directing an inferior court or quasi-judicial authority to send up the record of proceedings for review, so that the superior court can quash an order made in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice.
Explanation
A certiorari petition calls up the record from an inferior court or quasi-judicial tribunal and, if an error is found, quashes the impugned order. Grounds for certiorari: (a) excess or absence of jurisdiction — the inferior tribunal acted beyond its authority or where it had no authority; (b) error of law apparent on the face of the record — a clear legal error visible in the record itself; (c) violation of natural justice — the principles of audi alteram partem or nemo judex in causa sua were violated; (d) jurisdictional error of law — a legal error that goes to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Certiorari is a corrective writ — it corrects what has been done wrongly, unlike prohibition (which prevents what is about to be done wrongly).
Statutory Provision
Article 226(1), Constitution of India: power to issue writs including 'certiorari' — applied to quash orders of inferior courts and quasi-judicial authorities. The scope in India is wider than in English law: courts have applied certiorari to a broad range of administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, not limiting it strictly to courts. Section 397 CrPC (now Section 438 BNSS) — revision jurisdiction of High Courts is the statutory equivalent for criminal courts.
Evidence of a person's general reputation or disposition — generally excluded except in specified circumstances.
Explanation
As a general rule, evidence of the bad character of the accused is inadmissible in criminal trials, but evidence of good character is admissible for the accused — and character of the complainant may be relevant in certain cases.
A statutory body under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 that exercises jurisdiction over children in need of care and protection — not children in conflict with the law (who go before the Juvenile Justice Board).
Explanation
The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under Section 27 of the JJ Act, 2015 is distinct from the JJB: while the JJB handles children who have allegedly committed offences (children in conflict with the law — CICL), the CWC handles children in need of care and protection (CNCP) — abandoned, abused, trafficked, runaway, or homeless children. Each district must have a CWC comprising a chairperson and four members (at least one woman, at least one child expert). The CWC has quasi-judicial powers: it may order restoration to family, placement in a child care institution, adoption proceedings, or foster care. The CWC is not a court but exercises judicial functions under the JJ Act.
Statutory Provision
Section 27(1), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: 'The State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for each district one or more Child Welfare Committees for exercising the powers and to discharge the duties conferred on such Committees in relation to children in need of care and protection.' Section 29: the CWC 'shall have the powers to restore and protect the rights of the child and shall be the final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights.'
Evidence from which the existence of the fact in issue may be inferred — the fact to be proved is not directly established by the evidence but must be inferred from one or more established facts through a chain of reasoning.
Explanation
Circumstantial evidence is indirect — it does not directly prove the fact in issue but allows the court to infer it from surrounding facts. In murder cases without eyewitnesses, conviction frequently rests entirely on circumstantial evidence: last seen evidence, motive, opportunity, possession of stolen articles, conduct after the offence. The Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of MP AIR 1952 SC 343 laid down the five-point test for conviction on purely circumstantial evidence. All Indian evidence (Sections 5-55 BSA) is relevant for what it proves — direct or circumstantial — the distinction affects the standard of inferential reasoning required, not admissibility.
Statutory Provision
No separate definition in BSA — circumstantial evidence is admitted under the general relevancy provisions. Section 7 BSA (formerly Section 7 IEA): 'Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.' This provision makes circumstantial facts — causes, effects, opportunities — relevant and admissible.
