The features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to any article by any industrial process — protected under the Designs Act, 2000 for 10 years (extendable by 5 years) against unauthorised reproduction.
Explanation
Design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 covers the visual appearance of a product — its aesthetic features — not its functional aspects (which may be protected by patents). Key requirements: (a) novelty — the design must be new and original, not previously published or used in India; (b) applied to an article — the design must be applied to a tangible product; (c) not aesthetic only — the design must be applied to manufacture (not merely an artistic work protected by copyright); (d) registration — design protection requires registration (unlike copyright which is automatic). Common examples: the shape of a mobile phone, the design of a motorcycle fuel tank, the pattern on a fabric, the ornamental features of a furniture piece.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(d), Designs Act, 2000: 'design means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device.' Section 11: initial protection 10 years from date of registration; extendable by 5 years on application.
A Director Identification Number — a unique 8-digit number allotted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to any person intending to be appointed as a director of a company — mandatory for all directors under Section 154 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Explanation
The DIN is the director's unique identifier in the MCA21 system — every filing related to a director's appointment, resignation, disqualification, or change of address uses the DIN. Obtaining DIN: filing Form DIR-3 with MCA (with identity proof, address proof, and photograph); DIN is allotted within 24-48 hours online. One person has only one DIN, regardless of how many companies they are associated with. A DIN may be: surrendered (director voluntarily surrenders when resigning all directorships); deactivated (by MCA for non-compliance, disqualification, or non-update of KYC); or cancelled (for fraud). DIN is also used for managing designated partners of LLPs. Annual KYC update is mandatory — DIR-3 KYC must be filed annually by all DIN holders.
Statutory Provision
Section 154, Companies Act, 2013: 'The Central Government shall, within one month from the receipt of the application, allot a Director Identification Number to an applicant in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.' Section 153: every individual intending to be appointed as director of a company shall make an application electronically to the Central Government for allotment of Director Identification Number along with such fees as may be prescribed.
Evidence that directly proves a fact in issue without requiring inference — eyewitness testimony, documentary proof, or any evidence that establishes the fact itself rather than allowing it to be inferred from other facts.
Explanation
Direct evidence is the most straightforward form of proof — the witness saw the accused commit the act, the document directly states the fact, the photograph directly shows the scene. No inferential step is needed. Unlike circumstantial evidence (where the fact in issue is inferred from surrounding circumstances), direct evidence establishes the fact directly. However, direct evidence is not automatically more reliable than circumstantial evidence — eyewitnesses may be mistaken, lying, or influenced. Indian courts treat eyewitness testimony with significant caution, particularly in criminal cases involving identification evidence, where mistaken identity is a major risk.
Statutory Provision
Section 60, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 60 IEA): 'Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say, if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner.'
Non-justiciable guidelines in Part IV (Articles 36-51) of the Constitution directing the State towards achieving social, economic, and political justice — the 'conscience of the Constitution.'
Explanation
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are guidelines to the State (Centre and State Governments, local bodies) for governance and policy-making. They are non-justiciable — courts cannot compel compliance — but are 'fundamental in governance of the country' (Article 37). They represent the socio-economic aspirations of the Constitution: equal pay for equal work (Article 39(d)), free legal aid (Article 39A), right to work (Article 41), equal justice (Article 39A), living wage (Article 43), uniform civil code (Article 44), and village panchayats (Article 40). DPSPs inform constitutional interpretation and are used to justify reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.
Statutory Provision
Article 37, Constitution of India: 'The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.'
Judicial relief that the court may grant or refuse in its sound discretion, even where the applicant has established a legal or equitable right — as opposed to ex debito justitiae (relief granted as of right).
Explanation
Most equitable reliefs in Indian law are discretionary — the court may refuse to grant them even if the applicant proves their entitlement, if the court determines that equitable considerations weigh against the grant. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes specific performance discretionary: the court is not bound to grant it merely because it is legally available. Perpetual injunctions, declarations, and mandatory injunctions are all discretionary. The court's discretion must be exercised judicially — not arbitrarily, not capriciously, but on settled legal principles. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands (clean hands doctrine); a person who has delayed without sufficient cause may be denied equitable relief on the ground of laches.
Statutory Provision
Section 20(1), Specific Relief Act, 1963: 'The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.' Section 36 SRA: 'Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual.'
Doing an act with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, as defined under the BNS 2023.
Explanation
Under Section 2(10) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly IPC Section 24), 'dishonestly' means doing something with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. 'Wrongful gain' is gain by unlawful means of property to which one is not entitled; 'wrongful loss' is the loss of property by unlawful means of property to which the sufferer is entitled. The definition is used in property offences (theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust, mischief) to establish the culpable mental state required.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(10), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 'A person is said to do a thing dishonestly who does that thing with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person.' Wrongful gain is defined as gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
The ineligibility of a person to be appointed as or continue as a director of a company — arising under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 from specified grounds including conviction for offences, failure to file financial statements, company not paying dividends, or involvement in insolvency proceedings.
Explanation
Section 164 CA 2013 specifies automatic disqualifications: (a) conviction for an offence with imprisonment of 6+ months (Section 164(1)(d)); (b) un-discharged insolvent; (c) court order restricting promotion/management of companies; (d) company failing to file annual returns or financial statements for 3+ years (Section 164(2)(a)); (e) company failing to repay deposits or pay dividend/declared redemption of debentures for 1+ year (Section 164(2)(b)); and others. Disqualification under Section 164(2) is automatic and far-reaching — the director is disqualified from ALL companies in which they are a director (not just the defaulting company). This Section 164(2) mass disqualification affected hundreds of thousands of directors when the MCA deactivated DINs of directors of non-compliant companies in 2017-18.
Statutory Provision
Section 164(1), Companies Act, 2013: 'A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a director of a company, if — (a) he is of unsound mind; (b) he is an undischarged insolvent; (c) he has applied to be adjudicated as an insolvent and his application is pending; (d) he has been convicted by a court of any offence, whether involving moral turpitude or otherwise, and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than six months, and a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of expiry of the sentence...' Section 164(2): disqualification for failure to file annual returns or financial statements for 3 consecutive years.
The lowest tier of the consumer dispute redressal system — now called the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — with jurisdiction over consumer complaints where the consideration paid does not exceed Rs. 1 crore.
Explanation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (formerly called District Forum before the CPA 2019) is established in each district by the State Government. Composition: a President (who has been or is a District Judge or qualified for that) and minimum two members (at least one woman). Filing fee is nominal (Rs. 200-2,000). The consumer can file the complaint in the District Commission of the district where they reside, work, or where the cause of action arose — the CPA 2019 expanded filing jurisdiction for consumer convenience. The DCDRC must admit or reject a complaint within 21 days of filing, and must dispose of cases within 90 days (extended to 150 days where laboratory analysis is required). Appeals from DCDRC go to the State Commission.
Statutory Provision
Section 28(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 'The State Government shall, by notification, establish a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to be known as the District Commission, in each district of the State.' Section 34(1): 'Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, does not exceed one crore rupees.'
An area notified by the Central or State Government as 'disturbed' under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 — in which the armed forces are given special powers including the power to arrest without warrant and use force even to the extent of causing death.
Explanation
A 'disturbed area' under Section 3 of the AFSPA, 1958 is any area declared disturbed by the Central Government (for states in the Northeast) or the State Government. Once an area is declared disturbed: (a) any commissioned officer/warrant officer/NCO of the armed forces may, in a disturbed area, if reasonably necessary, fire upon or use force against any person acting in contravention of specified laws (even to the extent of causing death) — with a prior warning; (b) arrest any person without warrant who has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence; (c) enter and search any premises to make an arrest or recover stolen property. The AFSPA has been highly controversial — human rights organisations have documented abuses of AFSPA powers, and the Supreme Court has struggled with balancing national security and human rights in disturbed area operations.
Statutory Provision
Section 3, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958: 'The Governor of that State or the Administrator of that Union territory or the Central Government may, if of opinion that the whole or any part of such State or Union territory, as the case may be, is in a disturbed or dangerous condition such that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the whole or such part of such State or Union Territory to be a disturbed area.'
A tax formerly levied on companies at the time of distributing dividends to shareholders — abolished by the Finance Act, 2020 and replaced with a classical system where dividend income is taxable in the hands of the recipient shareholders at their applicable income tax rates.
Explanation
Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) was a tax imposed on domestic companies at the time of distribution of dividends, under Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company paid DDT (at approximately 20.56% inclusive of surcharge and cess) before distributing net dividends to shareholders. DDT was abolished by the Finance Act, 2020 — from April 1, 2020, the classical system was restored: dividends are included in the shareholder's total income and taxed at applicable rates. This change shifted the tax burden from companies to shareholders — particularly impacting high-income individuals who are now taxed on dividend income at their marginal rate (up to 42.74%), while the company itself has no DDT liability.
Statutory Provision
Section 115-O, Income Tax Act, 1961 (as in force before Finance Act 2020): 'In addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company for any assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such domestic company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of April, 1997, whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of fifteen per cent.' [Abolished from AY 2021-22; now dividend is taxable in the hands of recipient.]
A bench of two judges in the High Court — the standard appellate bench for hearing first appeals, Letters Patent Appeals, writ appeals, and other matters that require more than a Single Judge but less than a Full Bench.
Explanation
A Division Bench (DB) is the standard multi-judge bench in Indian High Courts — two judges sitting together. Most High Court appellate work is done by Division Benches: (a) appeals from Single Judge orders in writ petitions (Letters Patent Appeals); (b) first appeals from subordinate court decrees in more significant matters; (c) references from Single Judges on important questions of law; and (d) contempt proceedings in some High Courts. A Division Bench's decision binds Single Judges of the same High Court but can itself be overruled by a Full Bench or the Supreme Court. When the two judges on a Division Bench disagree on a legal point (a split decision), the matter must be placed before a third judge to break the deadlock.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory definition — 'Division Bench' is a judicial convention dating from the Privy Council era and the Letters Patent of High Courts. The High Courts (Allotment of Business) Rules and each High Court's own rules specify which matters are heard by Division Benches. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 distinguish between 'Benches' of different compositions.
Evidence derived from analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) — the genetic material present in every human cell — used to identify individuals with high scientific certainty in criminal investigations, paternity disputes, and missing persons cases.
Explanation
DNA evidence is admitted in Indian courts under Section 45 BSA (expert opinion) as the opinion of a DNA analyst skilled in molecular biology. DNA analysis can: (a) match blood, semen, saliva, or hair at a crime scene to a specific individual; (b) establish paternity or family relationships; (c) exclude or include an accused as the source of biological material. The DNA Profiling Bill (DNAPB) has been proposed multiple times in India but has not yet been enacted as a comprehensive framework law. Courts have admitted DNA evidence in hundreds of cases — the Supreme Court in several decisions has treated DNA evidence as highly reliable but not conclusive on its own.
Statutory Provision
No standalone DNA evidence statute in India (the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 was introduced but not passed as of 2024). DNA evidence is admitted under: Section 45 BSA — expert opinion on scientific matters; Section 53 BNSS (formerly Section 53 CrPC) — examination of the accused by medical practitioner including collection of blood, saliva, and other biological materials for examination; Section 164A BNSS — medical examination of rape victims, with consent, including collection of DNA samples.
