A petition filed in the High Court (Article 226) or Supreme Court (Article 32) seeking a writ of habeas corpus — directing the detaining authority to produce the detained person before the court and show lawful cause for the detention.
Explanation
The habeas corpus petition is the oldest and most fundamental writ — the 'Great Writ of Liberty.' The Latin phrase means 'you shall have the body.' A habeas corpus petition requires the detaining authority to: (a) produce the detained person before the court; and (b) show legal justification for the detention. If the detention is found to be illegal — without legal authority, in violation of constitutional rights, or excessive — the court orders immediate release. The writ is ex debito justitiae (granted as of right when illegal detention is established) — the court cannot refuse to issue it once illegality is proved.
Statutory Provision
Article 226(1), Constitution of India: 'Every High Court shall have power... to issue to any person or authority... directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus... for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.' Article 32(2): The Supreme Court may issue 'writs in the nature of habeas corpus... for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.' The writ extends to any form of unlawful detention — judicial, executive, or private.
The unauthorised or fraudulent access to a computer system, network, or data — whether by bypassing security measures, exploiting vulnerabilities, or using stolen credentials — a criminal offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Explanation
Hacking in the legal sense covers any act of dishonestly or fraudulently accessing a computer system without authorisation — as penalised under Section 66 IT Act (read with Section 43 IT Act). Section 43 IT Act defines the base civil offences: (a) accessing or securing access without permission (Section 43(a)); (b) downloading, copying, or extracting data without permission (Section 43(b)); (c) introducing viruses or computer contaminants (Section 43(c)); (d) damaging or disrupting computer systems (Section 43(d)). When done dishonestly or fraudulently, these become criminal under Section 66 IT Act. More severe hacking against protected government/critical infrastructure systems is punishable under Section 70 IT Act (up to 10 years imprisonment).
Statutory Provision
Section 43(a), Information Technology Act, 2000: 'If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network — (a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource; he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.' Section 66 IT Act: when the above is done dishonestly or fraudulently — criminal liability (imprisonment up to 3 years/fine up to Rs. 5 lakh).
A rule of statutory interpretation that where two provisions of a statute appear to conflict, the court should adopt an interpretation that reconciles them and gives full effect to both, rather than treating one as nullifying the other.
Explanation
Harmonious construction is the principle that a statute must be read as a whole, with all its provisions given effect. When two provisions seem to conflict, courts must try to harmonise them — finding an interpretation under which both can operate simultaneously and each retains its full meaning. The principle was classically stated by the Supreme Court in C.P. Berar Act case (1961): 'The Courts must avoid a head-on clash between seemingly inconsistent provisions and must construe the apparent discordant provisions so as to harmonise them.' Only when genuine irreconcilable conflict exists does the court resort to the rule that the later provision prevails over the earlier (lex posterior), or the specific provision prevails over the general (generalia specialibus non derogant).
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — harmonious construction is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation stated in numerous Supreme Court decisions. C.P. Berar Act case: <em>Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore</em> AIR 1958 SC 255 (between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution), <em>M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu</em> (2010) 9 SCC 712 (harmonious construction between provisions of same statute). The principle applies both to statutes and to the Constitution.
An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — generally inadmissible because the maker of the statement is not before the court for cross-examination, but subject to numerous exceptions under the BSA.
Explanation
The hearsay rule excludes out-of-court statements from evidence when they are offered to prove the truth of what they assert. The reason: the original declarant is not subject to cross-examination, oath, or demeanour observation — the court cannot assess their credibility. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, oral evidence must be direct (Section 60 BSA) — a witness cannot testify to what someone else told them about a fact (this would be hearsay). However, the BSA recognises numerous exceptions where out-of-court statements are admissible: dying declarations (Section 26 BSA), statements by deceased persons forming part of the cause of action (Section 32 BSA), admissions (Section 17-23 BSA), confessions (Section 23-26 BSA), and statements in public documents (Section 76-77 BSA).
Statutory Provision
Section 60, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 'Oral evidence must in all cases be direct' — this is the anti-hearsay rule. Section 32 BSA (formerly Section 32 IEA) provides exceptions for statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses: statements made in the course of business when the maker is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable, etc. These are the statutory hearsay exceptions.
A witness who, when examined by the party who called them, gives testimony adverse to that party's case — the calling party may, with the court's permission, cross-examine and contradict their own witness.
Explanation
Under Section 153 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 154 IEA), when a party calls a witness who turns hostile (gives evidence contrary to what was expected and is declared adverse by the court), the calling party may: (a) cross-examine their own witness; (b) put leading questions to them; (c) contradict them by their own prior statements (Section 166 BSA — prior inconsistent statements). A hostile witness declaration means the party is no longer bound by their witness's testimony — they can actively challenge it. Hostile witnesses are extremely common in Indian criminal trials, where witnesses often retract statements made to police under pressure or fear.
Statutory Provision
Section 153, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 154 IEA): 'The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.' [This is the permission to cross-examine one's own witness — the operative provision when a witness turns hostile.]
