Legal Dictionary

Under BNSS 2023, the term 'complainant' refers specifically to the person who makes a 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(d) — an allegation about a non-cognizable offence made to a magistrate. For cognizable offences, the equivalent is the 'informant' who gives information to the police (First Information Report — FIR). The complainant in a complaint case may not be the victim — they may be a concerned citizen or a statutory body. The complainant's complaint may be dismissed under Section 203 BNSS (insufficient grounds) or may be taken cognizance of under Section 210 BNSS. If cognizance is taken and the accused is not arrested, the magistrate may issue a summons or warrant.

A complaint under Section 2(d) BNSS 2023 is the mechanism by which a private person can initiate criminal proceedings before a Magistrate when the police have not acted or when the law requires Magistrate-initiated proceedings (e.g., offences triable by Sessions Court exclusively). A complaint is distinct from an FIR (which triggers police investigation) and from a police report (charge sheet). The Magistrate takes cognisance on a complaint and may conduct a preliminary inquiry before issuing process (summons/warrant) against the accused.

Joint liability where several persons cause damage.

Scheme for small taxpayers to pay tax at fixed rate.

Offence that the aggrieved party may compound (compromise) with the accused, resulting in the accused's acquittal.

The procedure by which a compoundable offence is settled between the aggrieved party and the accused, resulting in acquittal.

Conciliation under Part III (Sections 61-81) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is similar to mediation but the conciliator takes a more active role — the conciliator may formulate and put forward proposals for settlement (Section 67(4) ArCA). Like mediation, conciliation is voluntary and confidential; a settlement agreement signed by the parties has the same status as an arbitral award (Section 74 ArCA). The distinction from mediation: conciliators may make proposals; mediators facilitate without proposing. In practice, the distinction has become blurred — and the Mediation Act, 2023 covers much of the ground that Part III ArCA covers for conciliation. Both may coexist or be used for different contexts (conciliation: more international commercial use; mediation: domestic civil use).

In the law of sale of goods, a 'condition' is a fundamental term — one that goes to the root of the contract. Section 12(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines it as 'a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated.' The distinction between condition and warranty determines the buyer's remedy: breach of condition → right to reject goods AND claim damages; breach of warranty → damages only (no right to reject). A condition may be express (stated by parties) or implied by law (Sections 14-17 SGA).

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (now applied to courts and tribunals) allows courts to condone delay in filing appeals and applications (not suits — Section 5 does not apply to suits, which are governed by Section 3 — suit filed after limitation is time-barred regardless of cause). 'Sufficient cause' is not defined but courts have held it requires: (a) a genuine and bona fide reason for the delay; (b) no deliberate or negligent omission; (c) the explanation must cover the entire period of delay. The Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 laid down that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay, as refusing to condone means deciding the case against the applicant on a technical ground without examining the merits.

Section 8 BSA 2023 makes the conduct of parties and affected persons relevant when it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or relevant fact — both previous and subsequent conduct are relevant. Previous conduct (before the event): relevant to show motive, preparation, or state of mind. Subsequent conduct (after the event): relevant to show guilt, innocence, or the consequences of the act. Classic examples: (a) An accused who fled after the murder — flight is subsequent conduct relevant to consciousness of guilt. (b) An accused who cleaned and concealed the weapon — conduct showing consciousness of guilt. (c) A complainant who immediately sought medical attention — subsequent conduct consistent with their account of the assault.

A confession must be a direct acknowledgment of guilt — not merely incriminating; it must be voluntary to be admissible; confessions to police officers are never admissible.

A confidentiality clause (or Non-Disclosure Agreement — NDA) protects sensitive business information shared between parties in a commercial relationship. Typically covers: trade secrets, technical know-how, business plans, customer lists, financial information, product formulas, software code. Key elements: (a) definition of 'confidential information' (what is protected); (b) exclusions (publicly available information, independently developed); (c) obligations (not to disclose or misuse); (d) permitted disclosures (to advisers, on legal compulsion); (e) duration (typically extends beyond the main contract); (f) remedies (injunction, damages). In India, confidentiality clauses are generally enforced under contract law — there is no standalone trade secrets statute, though the India Data Protection Act 2023 and sector-specific regulations provide additional protection.

Consent plays dual roles in Indian law: (a) In criminal law (Section 21 BNS, formerly Section 87 IPC): consent of the victim may negate certain offences. A person has the right to consent to acts that may harm only themselves — though consent is not a defence to acts causing death or grievous hurt unless consent is given for genuine medical purposes. Consent cannot be given by intoxicated persons, insane persons, or children under 12 (consent of a child below 12 is ineffective — Section 21 BNS Proviso). (b) In contract law (Section 13-14 ICA): consent of both parties is essential for a valid contract — consent obtained by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake is not 'free consent' and makes the contract voidable.

Criminal conspiracy — the offence is complete when the agreement is formed, without any overt act being necessary.

The Constitution Bench is the Supreme Court at its most authoritative — the minimum five-judge bench required for constitutional interpretation. Article 145(3) mandates: 'The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under article 143 shall be five.' Decisions of the Constitution Bench create binding precedents under Article 141 — binding on all courts in India and on all smaller Supreme Court benches. A two-judge or three-judge bench of the Supreme Court cannot overrule a Constitution Bench decision; only another Constitution Bench can.

Constitutional morality is the idea that adherence to the Constitution's foundational values — equality, liberty, dignity, fraternity — must prevail over social or popular morality when they conflict. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned in the Constituent Assembly: 'Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it.' The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (decriminalisation of homosexuality) held that constitutional morality must override social morality — even if the majority of society disapproves of certain conduct, constitutional values of dignity and equality may protect it.

Constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC extends the doctrine of res judicata beyond issues actually decided to issues that should have been raised. If a party fails to raise a ground that was available to them in the former suit, they cannot raise it in a subsequent suit. The policy: a party must put all their claims and defences forward in a single litigation — they cannot hold back some for a subsequent round. Explanation IV: 'Any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.'

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA 2019) replaced the 1986 Act and significantly enhanced the consumer dispute resolution framework. Three tiers: (a) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) — for claims up to Rs. 1 crore (enhanced from Rs. 20 lakh under 1986 Act); (b) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) — for claims between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 10 crore, and appeals from DCDRC; (c) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) — for claims above Rs. 10 crore, and appeals from SCDRC. Key features of CPA 2019: product liability provisions (Chapter VI), mediation as a dispute resolution option (Section 37-38), e-filing and video conferencing, enhanced penalties for unfair trade practices.

Contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is of two types: (a) Civil contempt — willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court; and (b) Criminal contempt — publication or act that scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding, or obstructs administration of justice. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have inherent powers of contempt; subordinate courts must apply to the High Court. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine up to Rs. 2000, or both.

A contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CoCA) is the mechanism for enforcing court orders and protecting judicial authority. Civil contempt (Section 2(b) CoCA): wilful disobedience of a court's judgment, order, direction, decree, or undertaking. Criminal contempt (Section 2(c) CoCA): publication or act that: (a) scandalises the court; (b) prejudices any judicial proceeding; or (c) interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. The 2006 amendment introduced 'truth' as a defence in criminal contempt — truth may be allowed as a justification if it is in public interest. Punishment: up to 6 months' simple imprisonment, fine up to Rs. 2,000, or both.