The principle that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation — the precaution must be taken even before the harm is fully established.
Explanation
The precautionary principle (Rio Declaration Principle 15, 1992) requires that when there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even when complete scientific certainty is lacking. The precautionary principle reverses the traditional approach (where action waits for proof of harm) — it requires preventive action when there is reasonable suspicion of harm. The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Zone case) applied the precautionary principle to order industries to relocate away from protected heritage zones even before the extent of harm was fully scientifically established.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — the precautionary principle is recognised as a principle of customary international law incorporated into Indian domestic environmental law through the Supreme Court. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Principle 15: 'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (Section 20) directs the NGT to apply the precautionary principle in deciding cases.
A direction issued by a court that has passed a decree to another court competent to execute the decree, directing it to attach the judgment debtor's property within its jurisdiction — used when the judgment debtor's property is in a different district from the court that passed the decree.
Explanation
A precept under Section 46 of the CPC is used when the property of the judgment debtor is located in a district where a different court (another district court or sub-court) has jurisdiction — and the decree-holder wants to prevent the property from being dissipated while the execution proceedings are initiated. The executing court sends a precept to the other court directing it to attach the property. The attachment under a precept is temporary (for a maximum period as specified, usually not exceeding two months) — during which period the decree-holder must file execution proceedings before the court that received the precept.
Statutory Provision
Section 46(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'Upon the application of the decree-holder the Court which passed a decree may, whenever it thinks fit, issue a precept to any other Court which would be competent to execute such decree to attach any property belonging to the judgment-debtor and specified in the precept.' Section 46(2): 'The Court to which a precept is sent shall proceed to attach the property in the manner prescribed in regard to the attachment of property in execution of a decree.'
The allotment of shares or other securities by a listed company to a selected group of persons (not through a public offer) — at a price not lower than the SEBI-determined floor price — subject to shareholder approval by special resolution.
Explanation
A preferential allotment under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 (and SEBI ICDR Regulations Chapter V for listed companies) is an issue of shares to specifically identified persons. The allottees may be promoters, strategic investors, institutional investors, or other specific parties. Key conditions for listed companies (SEBI ICDR): (a) special resolution approval; (b) allotment within 15 days of special resolution (60 days if SEBI approval needed); (c) issue price not less than SEBI-determined floor price (30-day or 26-week average VWAP, whichever is higher); (d) lock-in period: 18 months for promoters, 6 months for others. Preferential allotments are a common mechanism for corporate fundraising and strategic investments.
Statutory Provision
Section 62(1)(c), Companies Act, 2013: 'Where at any time, a company having a share capital proposes to increase its subscribed capital by the issue of further shares, such shares shall be offered to persons, if it is authorised by a special resolution to persons other than those referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), either for cash or for a consideration other than cash, if the price of such shares is determined by the valuation report of a registered valuer.' Regulation 163, SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018: floor price calculation for preferential issues.
A transaction — payment, transfer of property, or creation of security — made by a corporate debtor to a creditor within the look-back period that gives that creditor a better outcome than they would have received in the event of liquidation — voidable by the Resolution Professional or Liquidator.
Explanation
A preferential transaction under Section 43 IBC prejudices the general body of creditors by favouring one creditor over others. Key elements: (a) a transfer of property/interest; (b) for the benefit of a creditor, surety, or guarantor; (c) in respect of an antecedent debt; (d) within the look-back period (12 months for non-related parties; 24 months for related parties); (e) the transfer puts the beneficiary in a better position than they would have been in liquidation under Section 53. Transactions not avoidable: those made in the ordinary course of business; those creating new value (new money advanced in exchange for security); and those where the debtor had no intent to prefer. The RP or Liquidator files an application before the NCLT to set aside the preferential transaction.
Statutory Provision
Section 44(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'The Adjudicating Authority may, on an application made by the resolution professional, by an order — (a) require any property transferred in connection with the giving of the preference to be vested in the corporate debtor; (b) require any property to be vested in the corporate debtor representing the application of proceeds of sale of property transferred in connection with the giving of the preference; (c) release or discharge (in whole or in part) any security interest created by the corporate debtor in connection with the giving of the preference; (d) require any person to pay such sums in respect of benefits received by him from the corporate debtor, as the Adjudicating Authority may direct.'
Acts done in anticipation of committing an offence — relevant as evidence of intention under Section 8 BSA, but distinguished from 'attempt' (which is criminally punishable) since preparation alone does not ordinarily constitute an offence.
Explanation
Preparation refers to acts done to facilitate the commission of an intended offence — obtaining tools, scouting locations, acquiring materials. Preparation is relevant as evidence under Section 8 BSA (it shows motive and preparation for a fact in issue) but is generally not criminally punishable under the BNS as the act has not crossed the threshold into attempt. Exceptions: certain specific offences criminalise preparation: possession of housebreaking tools (Section 334 BNS), preparation to commit dacoity (Section 311 BNS). In civil litigation, preparation for a transaction (negotiation notes, drafts) is relevant to show the parties' intentions when a dispute arises about the final contract.
Statutory Provision
Section 8, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 'Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.' Section 311, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 399 IPC): 'Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.' [One of the specific preparatory offences.]
The imposition of central rule in a State when the President is satisfied that the constitutional machinery of the State has broken down, proclaimed under Article 356.
Explanation
President's Rule under Article 356 is declared when the President (on the Governor's report or otherwise) is satisfied that the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The State government is dismissed, the State legislature is suspended or dissolved, and the President (through the Governor) assumes executive power of the State. President's Rule has been imposed 126 times in India — often controversially for political reasons. The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 severely restricted the scope for misuse by requiring judicial review of every proclamation under Article 356.
Statutory Provision
Article 356(1), Constitution of India: 'If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation— (a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State...'
An inference that the court may or must draw from proved facts without direct evidence of the inferred fact.
Explanation
Presumptions operate as inference rules — from certain proved facts, the court is permitted (rebuttable) or required (conclusive) to infer a further fact, shifting the evidential burden.
Detention of a person by executive order (without trial, charge, or conviction) to prevent them from committing prejudicial acts against the security of the State, maintenance of public order, or essential services — authorised by Article 22 of the Constitution subject to safeguards.
Explanation
Preventive detention is exceptional — a person is detained not for what they have done but for what they might do. The constitutional framework: Articles 22(4)-(7) set out the procedural safeguards for preventive detention. Key laws: (a) National Security Act (NSA), 1980 — detention for up to 12 months for preventing activities prejudicial to defence, security, or public order; (b) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974 — for smuggling and foreign exchange violations; (c) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS), 1988; and (d) state-level preventive detention laws (Goonda Acts). Safeguards: the detenu must be informed of the grounds of detention as soon as possible; representation to an Advisory Board must be possible; Advisory Board must review within 3 weeks.
Statutory Provision
Article 22(4), Constitution of India: 'No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless — (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention; provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).'
The person who employs an agent to act on their behalf in dealings with third parties — bound by the agent's authorised acts as if those acts were done personally by the principal.
Explanation
The principal is the party in whose name and for whose account the agent acts. The principal is bound by all acts of the agent within the agent's authority (actual or apparent). Under Section 226 ICA, contracts entered into by an agent on behalf of a disclosed principal are enforceable directly between the principal and the third party — the agent drops out of the contractual relationship. A principal may be: (a) disclosed and named — third party knows who the principal is; (b) disclosed but unnamed — third party knows there is a principal but not who; (c) undisclosed — third party does not know they are dealing with an agent at all. The concept of 'undisclosed principal' (Sections 230-231 ICA) allows the principal to intervene and enforce the contract even though the agent appeared to be contracting personally.
Statutory Provision
Section 182, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the principal.' Section 226: 'Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person.'
The right to use force to protect oneself or others from an imminent unlawful attack.
Explanation
Every person's legal right to defend their body and property against imminent threats — the amount of force used must be no more than reasonably necessary.
All documents other than public documents — must be proved by primary evidence or by secondary evidence under specified conditions.
Explanation
Private documents are all documents not falling within the definition of public documents — they require production of the original (primary evidence) or secondary evidence under the strict conditions of Section 58 BSA.
Unlawful interference with a person's use and enjoyment of land.
Explanation
Unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land in the plaintiff's possession — a civil tort for which injunction and damages are available.
Statutory Provision
Common law tort — no specific statutory provision; CPC Order XXXIX Rule 1 (temporary injunction) for remedy.
A motion moved in Parliament or a State Legislature alleging that a member's parliamentary privileges have been violated, or that the House's dignity has been breached, calling for action by the Privileges Committee.
Explanation
Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament and its members necessary for their functioning — freedom of speech (Article 105), freedom from arrest (Article 105(3)), and the right to conduct proceedings without interference. A privilege motion is moved when a member believes their privilege has been breached — typically by a minister's misleading statement, publication of confidential proceedings, defamation of a member's conduct in Parliament, or obstruction of a member in the performance of parliamentary duties. The Privileges Committee investigates and recommends action, which may include reprimand, suspension, or in extreme cases imprisonment.
Statutory Provision
Article 105(3), Constitution of India: 'In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.'
The official judicial process of proving and registering a will, and granting authority to the executor to administer the deceased's estate in accordance with its terms.
Explanation
Probate is a court process under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 213-222) by which the court validates a deceased person's will and grants authority to the named executor to administer the estate. It is mandatory for Christians and is required for enforcement of a will in certain High Court jurisdictions. Once granted, probate is conclusive proof of the will's validity and the executor's authority—no one can challenge the executor's right to administer the estate so long as probate stands. In India, probate jurisdiction lies with the High Court (or District Court in some states) where the testator had assets.
Statutory Provision
Section 213, Indian Succession Act, 1925: 'No right as executor or legatee can be established in any court of justice, unless a court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will annexed.'
