Legal Dictionary

Vacating a stay is the counterpart to granting it — the court cancels the stay order, and the status quo ante the stay is restored. A stay may be vacated: (a) by the party who obtained it (voluntarily, if they no longer need it); (b) by the court on its own motion (if the grounds for stay have changed); or (c) on an application by the opposite party showing that the stay was wrongly obtained, the conditions have changed, or the applicant is abusing the stay. Under the Asian Resurfacing ruling, interim stays automatically expire after 6 months unless explicitly renewed.

Vicarious liability operates through the maxim 'respondeat superior' (let the superior/master answer): an employer is liable for torts committed by their employee if the tort was committed in the course of the employment. The employer's liability is 'vicarious' because they are held liable for another's wrong — their own culpability lies in having employed the tortfeasor and (in the case of negligent employment) in having selected them poorly. Key elements: (a) employer-employee relationship; (b) the tort was committed in the course of employment — not on a 'frolic of his own.' An employee acting for purely personal purposes (outside the employment scope) takes the employer outside vicarious liability.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 significantly strengthened victim rights compared to the old CrPC. Key victim rights under BNSS: (a) Section 17(3) — victim's right to be heard before bail is granted to the accused in serious offences; (b) Section 176(3) — victim's right to be represented by their own advocate in all stages of trial (not only a government prosecutor); (c) Section 396 — victim compensation scheme entitlement; (d) right to know the progress of investigation through mandatory status reports (Section 193(3)); and (e) right to appeal against acquittal in certain cases. Victims of sexual offences and trafficking have enhanced protections including identity protection and private-in-camera trial.

Victim compensation in India operates through two pathways: (a) BNSS Section 396 (formerly CrPC Section 357) allows courts to order compensation from the fine imposed on a convicted person; and (b) BNSS Section 397 (formerly CrPC Section 357A) mandates every State to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) for rehabilitation of victims of crime, especially where the offender is not traceable or convicted and the victim has suffered significant loss. The Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) directed States to implement VCS for sexual offence victims within defined timelines.

System to prevent corruption in government.

Agreement or act treated as if it never existed from the time of its creation.

A void agreement under Section 2(g) ICA is one that 'is not enforceable by law.' In contrast to a voidable contract (which is valid until avoided), a void agreement has no legal effect from the start — no rights, no obligations, no legal remedy for breach. Void agreements under the Indian Contract Act include: agreements by persons without capacity (Section 11 — minor, person of unsound mind), agreements without consideration or the consideration/object is unlawful (Section 23-24), agreements in restraint of trade (Section 27), agreements in restraint of legal proceedings (Section 28), uncertain agreements (Section 29), wagering agreements (Section 30), and agreements to do impossible acts (Section 56).

Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: 'to one who is willing, no injury is done') is a complete defence in tort law: if the plaintiff freely and knowingly consented to the risk of harm from the defendant's act, the defendant is not liable for resulting harm. Elements: (a) the plaintiff had knowledge of the specific risk; (b) the plaintiff voluntarily assumed that specific risk; (c) the risk materialised and caused the harm. The defence is narrow: mere knowledge of risk is not consent to it ('scienti non fit injuria' — to one who knows, no injury is done — is a weaker principle); the plaintiff must have both known AND freely consented.

Under Section 2(43) of the BNS 2023 (formerly IPC Section 39), a person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when they cause it by means they knew or had reason to believe would produce it, or when they intended to cause it through those means. The definition extends liability beyond direct and intended consequences to foreseeable consequences—bringing the doctrine of constructive liability into Indian penal law. It operates alongside Section 6 BNS (knowledge of consequences), making voluntary acts the basis of criminal liability when the natural outcome of the act was foreseen or ought to have been foreseen.