Prior approval from a competent authority (typically the government) required before a court can take cognizance of certain offences — particularly offences alleged to have been committed by public servants in the discharge of their official duties.
Explanation
Sanction for prosecution under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) requires prior approval of the competent authority before any investigation or inquiry can even be commenced against a public servant (above a specified rank) for alleged corruption offences committed while discharging official duties. Under BNSS 2023 (Section 218, formerly Section 197 CrPC), no court can take cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant (while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty) without prior sanction of the government. This sanction requirement exists to protect bona fide public servants from vexatious prosecutions but has been criticised for shielding corrupt officials.
Statutory Provision
Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended 2018): 'No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry into an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of — (a) the Central Government, where the question of granting approval relates to a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government; (b) the State Government in any other case.' Section 218 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 197 CrPC): prior sanction required for prosecution of judge, magistrate, or public servant for acts done in official capacity.
The Securities Appellate Tribunal — an independent tribunal constituted under Section 15K of the SEBI Act, 1992 to hear appeals against orders passed by SEBI and certain other financial regulators, including RBI in prescribed matters.
Explanation
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) hears appeals from: (a) SEBI orders (all orders passed by SEBI — securities law violations, penalties, insider trading, takeover code violations, etc.); (b) orders passed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in specified matters; (c) Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) in specified matters. SAT has a Presiding Officer (retired judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court) and two members (experts in law, finance, or administration). SAT decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court. SAT plays a critical role in securities market regulation — providing an expert, independent appellate check on SEBI's regulatory powers.
Statutory Provision
Section 15K(1), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: 'The Central Government shall, by notification, establish one or more Appellate Tribunals to be known as the Securities Appellate Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.' Section 15L: composition — Presiding Officer (retired SC judge or retired Chief Justice of High Court) and two Members.
Evidence of the contents of a document other than the document itself.
Explanation
Copies, certified copies, counterpart evidence, or oral accounts of the content of a primary document — admissible only when the original is unavailable and the conditions for secondary evidence are satisfied.
The constitutional principle that the State shall not have an official religion, shall treat all religions equally, and shall not discriminate against citizens on grounds of religion — described as 'positive secularism' unique to India.
Explanation
Secularism was inserted into the Preamble of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment (1976) alongside 'Socialist'. However, the Constitution from 1950 already contained secular features: Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (no discrimination on religion), Article 25-28 (freedom of religion), and Article 29-30 (cultural and educational rights of minorities). Indian secularism is 'positive secularism' — the State does not avoid religion but engages with all religions equally. The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) declared secularism a basic structure principle — a State government that promotes one religion at the expense of others can be dismissed under Article 356.
Statutory Provision
Preamble, Constitution of India (as amended by 42nd Amendment, 1976): 'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC...' Article 25(1): 'Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.'
The former offence of bringing or attempting to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government of India — Section 124A IPC (now substantially replaced by Section 152 BNS 2023 which focuses on acts that excite secession or armed rebellion).
Explanation
Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (one of the most controversial provisions in Indian criminal law) has been substantially replaced under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. Section 152 BNS replaces Section 124A IPC — but the new provision has a different focus: it penalises exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. The old Section 124A IPC's words about 'hatred,' 'contempt,' and 'disaffection' towards the Government (which had been used widely to suppress legitimate dissent) have been narrowed in the new BNS provision. However, Section 150 BNS (seditious content and statements causing enmity between groups/sections) also exists. The Supreme Court in 2022 had stayed all proceedings under Section 124A IPC pending reconsideration — and the BNS revision reflects partial legislative response to these concerns.
Statutory Provision
Section 152, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (replacing Section 124A IPC): 'Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.' [Note: differs significantly from Section 124A IPC's 'disaffection' language.]
The constitutional principle dividing governmental authority among three distinct branches — Legislature (Parliament), Executive (President and Council of Ministers), and Judiciary (Courts) — to prevent concentration of power and protect liberty.
Explanation
Separation of powers is an organisational principle of constitutional democracy, traced to Montesquieu's 'The Spirit of Laws' (1748). India's Constitution does not rigidly separate powers but establishes a system of 'checks and balances' — each branch has some oversight over others. The Legislature makes law; the Executive implements law; the Judiciary interprets law and adjudicates disputes. Overlaps exist: the President (Executive) is part of Parliament; judges (Judiciary) are appointed by the Executive; Parliament (Legislature) can remove judges (Impeachment). The Supreme Court has held that separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by constitutional amendment (Kesavananda Bharati).
Statutory Provision
No express provision — the Constitution embodies the separation of powers through its structure. Articles 79-122 (Parliament), Articles 52-78 (Executive), and Articles 124-147 (Judiciary) establish the three branches. The basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati) includes separation of powers as an unamendable feature.
The judicial act of annulling, cancelling, or overturning an order, decree, or judgment — either by the same court or by an appellate or revisional court — on grounds of illegality, procedural error, or injustice.
Explanation
Setting aside an order is one of the fundamental remedial actions available in the judicial system. A court 'sets aside' an order when it annuls it and restores the position to what it was before the order was passed. This is distinct from 'dismissing' an appeal (which upholds the lower court's order) or 'reversing' a decree (which converts it to the opposite outcome). Courts set aside orders that are procedurally flawed (e.g., ex parte decrees), passed without jurisdiction, or violative of natural justice. In criminal law, the Supreme Court or High Court may set aside a conviction (quash the conviction) if it was illegal or based on inadmissible evidence.
Statutory Provision
No single provision — 'set aside' is used throughout CPC (Order IX Rule 13 for ex parte decrees, Order XLVII Rule 1 for review), BNSS (Section 432 for sentences), and the Supreme Court Rules. The power to set aside flows from inherent powers and from specific provisions in each procedural code.
