Lawyer is a general term for anyone trained in law.

An advocate is a lawyer who is registered with a State Bar Council under the Advocates Act of 1961 and has the authority to represent clients in court.

Counsel typically refers to an advocate who represents a party in a specific case, and these terms are often used interchangeably.

Barrister is a term used in the UK and some Commonwealth countries for lawyers who specialise in court advocacy. In India, the term "barrister" specifically refers to individuals who have received legal education in the UK.

Post-independence, India only uses the term advocate in court practice.

A reverse flip is when an Indian startup merges its foreign holding company into its Indian entity, making India the global headquarters. Initially, startups flipped abroad to access global investors and IPOs.

Now, with improving Indian regulations, IPO opportunities, and rising foreign compliance costs, companies like Meesho are reversing the structure.

The process requires National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approval under Section 234 of the Companies Act, 2013, and compliance with FEMA, tax, and corporate laws.

It also involves legal complexities such as tax liability, valuation, and shareholder approvals, but offers long-term benefits like simplified governance and access to Indian capital markets.

The Doctrine of Pith & Substance helps courts decide the validity of a law when there is an overlap between the powers of Parliament and state legislatures under the Constitution.

It focuses on the real nature or essential character of the legislation. If the law’s main purpose falls within the legislature’s competence (under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule), the law is upheld, even if it incidentally affects subjects outside its jurisdiction.

In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court applied this doctrine to uphold state laws regulating intoxicating liquors, despite some federal encroachment, emphasising substance over form.

Compulsory licensing is a legal provision under the Copyright Act, 1957 that allows a person to use a copyrighted work without the owner’s consent, under specific conditions and with government authorisation.

Such licenses are issued under Sections 31 and 31B, with fair compensation to the owner.

It is typically granted when the copyright holder refuses to make the work available to the public or sets unreasonable terms, hindering access to the work.

The landmark case Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) clarified its scope, affirming that compulsory licences must serve public needs without violating the copyright holder’s economic rights.

Anticipatory bail is a legal remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allowing a person to seek bail in anticipation of arrest for a non-bailable offence.

It is granted by the Sessions Court or High Court when the applicant demonstrates a reasonable fear of imminent arrest.

The landmark case Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) clarified its scope. The applicant must show no intent to evade investigation. Conditions may include surrendering the passport or appearing for interrogation.

This remedy is not available once an individual has been arrested, and it cannot be claimed as an absolute right.

An Interlocutory Application is a procedural request made during the course of ongoing litigation, seeking temporary or interim relief without deciding the main issues.

It helps preserve the status quo, prevent harm, or ensure fair trial conduct. Common types include applications for injunctions, discovery, or temporary custody.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2), courts may grant interim injunctions to maintain peace.

The Supreme Court in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. laid down principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, emphasizing balance of convenience and irreparable harm. Such applications keep the process fair until final judgment.

Ratio decidendi is the fundamental legal reasoning or principle on which a court’s decision is based. It forms the binding precedent that lower courts must follow, as mandated by Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.

For example, in Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation, the Supreme Court emphasised that the ratio is the authoritative part of the judgment.

In contrast, Obiter Dicta are remarks or observations made “by the way” that are not necessary for the decision.

These carry persuasive value but are not binding, as clarified in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly. While ratio prescribes law, obiter offers insight.

Locus standi is a Latin term meaning "place to stand." It refers to the legal capacity of a person to bring an action or appear in court.

Traditionally, only those directly affected by an issue could approach the courts. However, with the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), especially after Justice P.N. Bhagwati's judgment in SP Gupta v. Union of India, the doctrine was liberalised.

Now, any public-spirited individual can file a petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. This shift ensures access to justice, particularly for disadvantaged or voiceless communities.

Mens rea and actus reus are two essential elements of a crime.

Actus reus refers to the physical act or omission that constitutes a criminal offense (e.g., theft, assault).

Mens rea is the mental intent or guilty mind behind that act (e.g., intention, knowledge, recklessness).

For criminal liability to arise, both must usually coexist—this is known as the concurrence principle. For instance, in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1965 AIR 722), the Supreme Court stressed the need for guilty intent. Under the IPC, sections like 299 (culpable homicide) combine both elements. Without mens rea, an act by itself may not constitute a crime.

“In limine” is a Latin term, meaning “at the threshold,” which refers to the preliminary objections or application made at the very beginning of legal proceedings.

A petition or appeal may be dismissed ‘in limine’ if the court finds it untenable on initial review, without proceeding to detailed arguments or merits. 

For instance, in an eviction suit, a second appeal was filed before the Orissa High Court, where the court dismissed the said appeal ‘in limine.’ 

The court observed, “Considering the submission made herein and going through the question of law, this Court does not find any question of law for admitting the Second Appeal, for which the Second Appeal stands dismissed.”

The concept of Double Jeopardy is rooted in the Latin maxim ‘Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causai’ which ensures that no one should be vexed twice for the same offense. Thus uploading fairness, finality, and protection against state abuse.

This concept is enshrined in Article 20(2) and Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This protection is applicable only after a lawful conviction or acquittal.

In Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court held that the customs proceedings were not a judicial trial. Ergo, a later criminal case did not violate the protection against double jeopardy. 

A curative petition is the final legal remedy in India, filed after the Supreme Court dismisses a review petition. 

It is based on the Court’s inherent powers under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 

The case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) recognized that a curative petition can only be filed when there has been a violation of natural justice or when there is undisclosed judicial bias. 

It is rarely entertained and is typically decided in chambers. It serves to uphold the fairness of the judicial process, even beyond the point of finality.

The doctrine of Res Judicata, as outlined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prevents courts from reconsidering matters that have already been definitively decided between the same parties, thereby ensuring finality in litigation. 

In contrast, the doctrine of Res Subjudice, outlined in Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, applies when a matter is pending before a competent court. It prohibits the trial of a similar suit in another court at the same time. 

While Res Judicata applies after a judgment has been rendered, Res Sub Judice is relevant during ongoing proceedings. This distinction promotes judicial efficiency and helps prevent contradictory rulings.

Kangaroo Court refers to sham or prejudiced legal proceedings where fairness, neutrality, and due process are absent.

It typically implies that the trial is a mere formality with outcomes decided in advance, often driven by political, public, or institutional bias. 

This concept stands in direct violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Courts in India have consistently denounced such practices.

For instance, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court emphasized that any law or process must be "just, fair, and reasonable," reinforcing that arbitrary or biased trials are unconstitutional.