1

Legal language 2018.

Compulsory Q4. CASE REVIEW 12 MARKS.
1 MC MEHTA
2 DK BASU
3 VISHAKA
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.
M.C. Mehta was the landmark case in torts and was cause to bring the principle of absolute liability rule
the court gave this principle in his comment on this case. The case lays down the principle of absolute
liability and the concept of deep pockets.
BENCH: P. N. BHAGWATI, C.J.I., RANGANATH MISRA, G. L. OZA, M. M. DUTT
AND K. N. SINGH, JJ.
FACTS: Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, was engaged in
the manufacture of dangerous chemical. On December 1985, large amounts of oleum gas leaked form one
of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons. The original petition was
filed by MC Mehta for the closure of various units of Shriram as they were hazardous for the community
The leakage, resulted from the bursting of a tank containing oleum gas, was caused by mechanical and
human errors. It created a scare among the people residing nearby and within two days, another leakage, a
minor one, broke out as a result of oleum gas escaping from the joints of a pipe. The spillage was a result
of human blunders. On 6thDecember 1985, the District Magistrate,Delhi under Section 133(1) of
Cr.P.C, ordered Shriram to stop the manufacturing and processing of hazardous chemicals and fertilizers
at their establishment in Delhi and to remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi. Atthis particular
point, M.C. Mehta moved to Supreme Court to file PIL and claim for compensation for the losses caused
and also demanded that the closed establishment should not restart.
The contention was that as Shrirarn was carrying on an industry which was in accordance to the
Government's own declared industrial policies, was ultimately intended to be carried out by itself, but
instead of the Government immediately embarking on that industry, Shriram was permitted to carry it on
under the active control and regulation of the Government. Whether this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to
hear the present matter?
The first question that came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to what is the scope and ambit of the
jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 since the applications for compensation made by the Delhi Legal
Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association are applications sought to be maintained under that
Article
Issue II

Whether Article 21 was available against Shriram and whether Shriram owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd
Public Co, comes within the meaning of State under Article 12?
 2

The next question that arose for consideration was whether Article 21 is available against Shriram which
is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in an
industry vital to public interest and with potential to affect the life and health of the people. The issue of
availability of Art. 21 against a private corporation engaged in an activity which has potential to affect the
life and health of the people was vehemently argued by counsel for the applicants and Shriram.
The contention was that as Shrirarn was carrying on an industry which was in accordance to the
Government's own declared industrial policies, was ultimately intended to be carried out by itself, but
instead of the Government immediately embarking on that industry, Shriram was permitted to carry it on
under the active control and regulation of the Government.
Issue III

Whether compensation would be provided to the victims of the oleum gas leake tragedy if so then what
would be the measurement of liability of such an enterprise engaged in caring hazardous industries?

Finally the question which was seriously debated before the Hon’ble Court was the question as to what is
the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court held that Shriram is required to obtain a license under the Factories Act and is subject
to the directions and orders of the authorities under the Act. It is also required to obtain a license for its
manufacturing activities from the Municipal authorities under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957. It is subject
to extensive environment regulation under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and
as the factory is situated in an air pollution control area, it is also subject to the regulation of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is true that control is not exercised by the Government
in relation to the internal management policies of the Company.
Justice Bhagvati concluded the opinion of developing a new principle of liability which is not done by
English courts.
CONCLUSION:
If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the
law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident
arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its
overheads. The Court also pointed out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to
must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have
a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the amount of
compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.
Guidelines
 3

1. Setting up of an environmental courts on regional basis

2. Establishment of a neutral scientific expertise service to act as an information bank for the court.
3. Evolving a principle of absolute liability against the well established principle.
4. Rs. 30000 to be deposited with court
5. 1-5 km of greenbelt around factories
6. In the view of enormity of disaster no leniency or concession is called for
7. Jurisdiction was adopted that a letter addressed in the name of singe judge was considered enough to
move to the court in this case.
8. Bhagwati court deserves appropriate permission to build an Indian Environment Jurisdiction

Vishaka and ors vs state of Rajasthan

Justice Arijit Pasayat quoted - “While a murder destroys the physical frame of the victim , a rapist
degrades and defies the soul of a helpless women”
Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where Vishakha and
other women groups filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of
India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Today women being self- dependent and though holding good positions face
harassment, inequality, and biasness at workplace. the problem of Sexual Harassment at the workplace
has always been one of the pivotal subject of the women’s movement since a long time. It is a well-
known fact that women’s emancipation and her safety & security is most essential for the entire country
but this entire scenario completely shattered after the dark incident which took place in the year 1992 and
popularly known as- Vishaka Case. After which the Supreme Court gave Vishaka guidelines to curb
Sexual Harassment of women at workplace.

Bench: J.S. Verma C.J., Sujata V. Manohar & B.N. Kirpal JJ.
FACTS OF THE CASE-:
It goes back since the year 1985 when a women named as Bhanwari Devi, who was employed as a
village-level social worker also known as-Saathin un Development Project (WDP) run by the Government
of Rajasthan was badly raped in the year 1992. As it was the part of Devi’s job, she used to directly work
with the families to prevent the marriages and also report cases to the police to when urgenc With all this,
in one particular case it happened that Devi reported a family which had belonged to the Gurjar
Community to the police because of the of one year old infant. In 1992, to seek vengeance upon her,
Ramakant Gujjar along with his 5 men gang raped her in front of her husband. The police department at
first tried to dissuade them on filing the case on one pretext or other but to her determination; she lodged a
complaint against the accused. They were however, subjected to harsh cruelty by the female police
attendant. Adding to their misery, their request to spend the night in the police station was also refused.
 4

Various social organizations and women activists also raised their voices for Devi’s fight for Justice.
Therefore, a Public Interest Litigation was filled by the women’s right activists for the need to protect
women from sexual harassment at the workplace.
Issue:
Whether employer has any responsibility for sexual harassment by its employees.
Whether employer has any responsibility for sexual harassment to its employees.

Judgment:
Gender Equality finds place in Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 & 21. Sexual
Harassment at Workplace is a clear violation of gender Equality which in turn violates these integral
rights of the female class. Such harassment also results in the freedom provided under Article 19(1)(g).
The protection of females has become a basic minimum in nation across the globe. In the absence of
domestic law to curb the evil, assistance could be rendered from International Conventions and Statues to
the extent that it does not contravenes with any domestic law or the do not violates the spirit of
Constitution. The court held that such violation therefore attracts the remedy u/a 32.
The Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated upon the fact that Right to life under Art. 21 also
comprise Right to live with dignity. Such aforesaid dignity could and should be protected with suitable
guidelines.
Vishakha Guidelines
1. Employer or other answerable persons are bound to preclude such incidents from happening. In the event
of happening of such incidents the organization must consist of mechanism to provide conciliatory and
prosecutionary facilities.
2. Every employer other than providing services under (1) is under an obligation to
3. Expressly notify the prohibition of sexual harassment
4. The rules/regulations of govt. & public – sector bodies must include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual
harassment.
5. The Standing Orders of the private employer made under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 should include such provisions to prohibit sexual harassment.
6. The working conditions must be appropriate and not hostile to the woman employees of the organization.
Further, the female employees should feel a sense of equality in the atmosphere.

7. When the offences committed are the one discussed under Indian Penal Code or any other law, the
employer is bound to start the prosecution with complaining to appropriate authority.
Further, the employee must provide the victim all sort of protection while dealing with the complaints.
8. Appropriate Disciplinary Action shall be taken in case there is a violation of service rules.
 5

9. . Irrespective of the fact that the particular act constitutes an offence under IPC or any other law, the
organization must have a redressal mechanism to deal with it.
10. . The Complaint Committee must be headed by a woman and not less than half of the members must be
woman. For further assistance the committee shall also include NGO’s or someone aware with such
issues.
11. An employee-employer meet shall be arranged where the workers shall be allowed to raise issues of
sexual harassment.
12. The employer shall take adequate steps in order to spread awareness about the social evil.
13. Sexual Harassment consists of unwelcomed sexually determined behavior as physical sexual contact,
sexual favor, sexual remarks, pornographic content and also verbal. Non-verbal conduct of sexual nature
14. Sexual Harassment at workplace should be always –informed, produced & circulated

CONCLUSION-:
In the end, it would not be wrong to say that Judicial Activism has reached its apex in the landmark case
of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. Therefore, in a democratic country like India it is extremely important
that the rights of both the genders i.e. the male & the female are equally protected. Vishaka case of sexual
harassment at workplace is a case of landmark judgment by Supreme Court of India

It took the government seventeen years to pass the law against harassment within the geographical point
earlier this year, within the wake of the Delhi gang rape last Dec, once the Supreme Court had in 1997 set
down the Vishaka Guidelines on the matter.The Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 seeks to guard women from harassment at their place of work in an
exceedingly abundant wider sense.
Till 1997 even after India’s independence of 50 years there was hardly any law to safeguard sexual
harassment of working women. It is a very harsh reality that women across India face exploitation but
very few have the ability to raise their voices against it because of lack of family support, lack of
education, social stigma and low literacy level. Our basic motto should be to instill a culture in which
every women shall have a right to be free from sexual harassment and also to the right to work in a sexual
harassment free zone which is very important right of every person to live with respect and dignity free
from mental and physical torture
 6

D.K.Basu v/s State of West Bengal

The jusdgment on PIL on the issue of death in police custody and "custody jurisprudence" and modalities
for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for attrocities and death
caused in police custody and also the question of accountability
Here in this case, a letter was received from the non-social organization regarding the matter of lock up
deaths in the state of West Bengal. This letter was treated as a writ petition and the notice was passed. In
counter to this, the state of West Bengal has filed a petition. They have answered in this regard that, there
were no lock-up deaths as such and if there were any there was enquiry going on whoever has done it
[1]”. This case is one of the landmark judgments wherein the Supreme Court of India laid down
guidelines regarding the arrest of a person.
BENCH- Kuldip Singh, A.S. Anand, JJ.
JUDGEMENT BY- Justice A.S. Anand.
FACTS:
1. DK Basu, The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non- Political organisation on
26.08.1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items
published in the Telegraph Newspaper regarding deaths in police lock up and custody.
2. He requested that the letter be treated as a Writ Petition within the “Public Interest Litigation” Category.
Considering the importance of the issues raised in the letter, it was treated as a Writ Petition and notice
was served to the Respondents. While the Writ Petition was under consideration, one Mr. Ashok Kumar
Johri addressed a letter to the Chief Justice drawing his attention to the death of one Mahesh Bihari of
Pilkhana, Aligarh in Police Custody.
3. The same letter was also treated as a Writ Petition and was listed along with the Writ Petition of
D.K.Basu.
4. On 14.08.1987, the Court made the Order issuing notices to all the State Governments and notice was also
issued to the Law Commission of India requesting suitable suggestions within a period of two months.
5. In response to the notice, affidavits were filed by several states including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam,
Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra and Manipur. Further,
6. Dr. A.M.Singhvi, Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. All the Advocates
appearing rendered useful assistance to the Court

Issue:
1. Are policemen arbitrary in arresting a person?
2. Are there any prescribed guidelines while making a arrest?
Issues Answered:
1. Policemen are not to act arbitrarily while arresting a person. There are some guidelines that even a
policeman has to follow.
2. Yes, the Court had laid down a number of guidelines while arresting a person.
 7

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT: A number of Constitutional and Statutory provisions seek to

protect personal liberty, dignity and basic human rights of citizens. However, despite such provisions, the
alarming growth in the number of the cases of custodial torture and deaths are questioning the credibility of
rule of law and administration of criminal justice system.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and has been held to include the right to live with
human dignity. It thus also includes a guarantee against torture and assault by the state or its functionaries.
Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. It provides that no individuals
who are arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest and that
arrested individuals shall not be denied the right to consult and defend themselves by a legal practitioner of
their choice.
Article 20(3) provides that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against
himself or herself. Parliament’s attention is drawn to the urgent need to amend the rules of evidence
regarding prosecution of police ofcials accused of custodial violence, in particular the recommendations of
the Law Commission of India in its 113 thReport regarding a shift in the burden of proof, with the
introduction of a presumption of custodial violence if there is evidence that the detainee’s injury was
caused during the period of detention, and the consideration by the court of all relevant circumstances.
HELD: Relying on Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Ind SC) the Court stated that any
form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment falls within the ambit of Art 21, whether it occurs
during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.
The rights guaranteed by Art. 21 cannot be denied to undertrials, convicts, detenus and other prisoners in
custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions on
the right as are permitted by law. Even after laying down procedural requirements by this Court in Joginder
Kumar v State of UP, it has come to the Court’s notice that police have arrested a person without a warrant
in connection with the investigation of an offence, without recording the arrest, and the arrested person has
been subjected to torture to extract information from him or her for the purpose of further investigation,
recovery of case property or in order to extract a confession. The Court felt that it would be useful and
effective to structure appropriate machinery for contemporaneous recording and notication of all cases of
arrest and detention to bring in transparency and accountability. The Court issued a list of 12 guidelines
addition to the Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards which were to be followed in all cases of arrest and
detention.
The guidelines are as follows: –
(i) Police personnel carrying out arrest and interrogation should wear accurate, visible and clear
identication and name tags with their designations, the details of which should be recorded in a
register;
(ii) A memo of arrest (including the relevant date and time) shall be prepared by the arresting police ofcer
and shall be attested by at least one witness (either a relative of the arrestee or a respectable local
person) and countersigned by the arrestee;
(iii) One friend or relative of the arrestee (or another person known to him or her who has an interest in his
or her welfare) shall be informed, as soon as practicable, of the arrest and detention at the place in
question;
 8

(iv) Where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town in question, he or she
must be notied by the police of the time, place of arrest and custody within 8 to 12 hours of the arrest;
(v) The arrestee must be informed of this right as soon as he or she is arrested or detained;
(vi) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person, including
the name of the next friend who has been informed and the names and particulars of the police ofcers in whose
custody the arrestee is detained;
(vii) On request, the arrestee should be examined for injuries at the time of arrest and provided with a copy of
the resulting report, signed by both the ofcer and arrestee;
(viii) The arrestee should undergo a medical examination every 48 hours by a doctor from an approved panel
; (ix) Copies of all documents regarding the arrest are to be sent to the appropriate local Magistrate for his or
her records;
(x) The arrestee may be permitted to meet with his or her lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout
the interrogation
(xi) A police control room must be established at all district and State headquarters where information
regarding the arrest should be received within 12 hours of the arrest and displayed on a conspicuous notice
board.
(xii) These requirements are in addition to existing safeguards and do not detract from other directions given
by the courts on this matter. They will apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies which have
the power to detain and interrogate individuals. They need to be followed strictly; failure to comply shall
render the ofcial concerned liable for departmental action and contempt of court proceedings.
Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim and a civil action for
damages is a long drawn and cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressing the
infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at times perhaps the only
effective remedy for the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the
family. The state’s vicarious liability for the acts of public servants in infringing such rights. The quantum of
compensation will depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no rigid formula can be evolved.

LEGAL MAXIMS
A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition of law inWestern civilization
Most of theLatin maxims originate from the Medieval era in European states that used Latin astheir
legal language.
A legal maxim or legal phrase elucidates or expounds a legal principle, proposition or concept.
 9

Audi Alteram Parterm

Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other side"

It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the
opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.

Audi alteram partem" is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity or the principle of
natural justice in most legal systems.

A party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard’. This is the first
principle of civilized jurisprudence and is accepted by laws of men and god. In short, before an order is
passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him.

The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves.

Stages or Steps of Audi Alteram Partem

Right to notice:
1. Before taking any action, it is the right of the person to know the facts.
2. Without knowing the facts of the case, no one can defend himself.
3. The right to notice means the right of being known. The right to know the facts of the suit or case
happens at the start of any hearing.
4. Therefore, notice is a must to start a hearing. A notice must contain the time, place and date of
hearing, jurisdiction under with the case is filed, the charges, and proposed action against the
person.
5. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate

Right to know the evidence against him:

1. InDhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2], it was held that every person
has right to know the evidence to be used against him.
2. In the following case, the appellate income tax tribunal, did not disclose the information supplied
to it by their department.
3. Hence, the apex court held that it is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the evidence
to be used against the party should be disclosed to him.

Right to present case and evidence:

1. It is the right guaranteed to both the parties to represent their case. This can be done orally or in
writing.
 10

2. Many courts do not accept the oral process as it does not constitute any evidence to it. Therefore,
the case should be presented in written before the court for further hearing.
3. In the case of Union of India vs. J.P.Mitter[3], it has been held that if a person is granted to present
his case in writing, there is no violation of the principle of natural justice.

Right to rebut evidence:

1. It is the right of the opposite party to rebut the issue raised against him.
2. It is the duty of the court to grant permission for a rebuttal to the party so that he can express his views
and defend himself

No evidence should be taken at the back of the other party:

1. No evidence should take place at the back of the other party.
2. The presence of both the parties is necessary while the court is examining the evidence and taking a
decision over it.
3. But under certain cases, this right is not guaranteed to the opposite party. In the case of Hira Nath
Mishra vs. Rajendra Medical College[4], 36 girls of a medical college filed a complaint against few boys
for creating nuisance inside the girl’s hostel. They also provided the picture where the boys were
misbehaving as the evidence. The court examined the evidence without informing the other party and
held the expulsion of boys from the University
Report of the inquiry to be shown to the other party:
1. It is the right of the party to check the report of the inquiry.
2. Article 311(2) of the Constitution states that failure to supply a copy of the report of the inquiry to the
charged government employees before the final decision would amount to a failure to provide a
reasonable opportunity.
3. It was held by the Central Administrative Tribunal that supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the
opposite party is an obligatory function before proving a judgment

De Minimis Non Curat Lex

1. De Minimis Non Curat Lex is a Latin maxim which means the law does not govern trifles : law
ignores insignificant details

2. The law does not take insignificant things into account. Nothing is a wrong which a person of
ordinary temper would not complaint about. If A is driving on a dusty road and a bit of dust gets
sprayed on to B a passerby, which doesn’t not even harm him, A would not be liable to B. This
would be a case of De Minimis Non Curat Lex

3. In other words courts, do not generally waste their time on insignificant and immaterial matters,
except under certain circumstances. Thus a housewife who takes grains of wheat to a chakki would
 11

not be allowed to complaint that, in the process, a few grains of wheat were left at the machine of
the owner of mill and was not returned to her.

4. The maxim is also recognized in section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that nothing
is an offense by reason that it causes, or intend to cause any harm that harm is so slight that no
person of ordinary sense and temper would complaint of such a harm.

Cases where maxim was applied

1. Coward v/s Braddeley

In this case, a bystander touched a fireman on the arm to attract his attention to another part of the
building where the fire was growing rapidly. The suit was filed by the fireman against bystander
for the tort of battery, the court held that the bystander was not liable for tort of battery as this
amounted to an trivial/ insignificant act.

2. Branson v/s Didsbury

Here, the court approved a practice followed by the court at west-minister, under which the amount
involved was less than 20 pounds no retrial would be allowed at the instances of either party
Similarly s.96 of C.P.C. provides that unless a question of law is involved no appeal can be filled
against the judgment of Small Causes Court, if the subject matter of the original suit is less than
rs.10000.

Cases where the maxim was not applied

1. Helford v/s bailey
In this case A draws net in water where B has exclusive rights of fishing. Now, weather A catches a fish or
not, A has commited a tort against B, because the act if repeated would tend to establish right of A in that
water.
So even the act may be an trivial act the maxim is not applicable here

Res ispa loqitur

1. Meaning the ‘thing speaks for itself.’

2. The general rule of law says, that if a person makes an allegation against another and wants the court of
law to favor judgment in his is side he must produce necessary proof to support its allegations.
3. Notwithstanding, this general rule, in certain cases the mere fact that an incident has taken place may
become the primary evidence. In latin such a case is refered to as Res ispa loqitur
4. The principal requirement for the application of this maxim is that the mere fact of the accident
happened should be able to tell its own story and should raise the inference of negligence, so as to
establish a prima facie case against the defendant
5. Under the maxim, the plaintiff can create a presumption of negligence by the defendant by providing
that the harm would have not ordinarily occurred without negligence on part of defendant, and the object
that caused harm was under defendant’s control.
 12

6. There are three essentials for the application of maxim

a) The thing casuing damage should be under control of defendant or his servant
b) The accident must be such that in the ordinary course of thing such would have happened without
negligence
c) There must be no evidence for the actual cause of the accident

7. However it is not enough on the part of plaintiff to prove that he has suffered injury which has risen due
to negligence on the part of the defendant
8. Example = skidding of the car could be result of many causes other than negligence on the part of the
driver

Case where maxim was applied

1. Bryne v/s boalde, the plaintiff was passing along the street and when he came near the defendants shop he
was injured by a barrel that had a fall from a window on the second floor. There was no evidence on part
of plaintiff has to how the accident happened, beyond the fact he was knocked down by the barrel as
walking by the road. It was held by the court that the accident was prima facie proof of negligence
2. In the reference to Annoy Lyle, when a moving ship had a collusion with a ship which was anchored, it
was held that such a collusion is prima facie evidence of the negligence o fthe moving ship.

Case where maxim was not applied

1. Crisp v. Thomas, the blackboard of a classroom slipped down and fell, injuring one of the student. It was
held the fall of the board was not a result of the teachers negligence

Rex Non Protest Peccare

1. Meaning the ‘king can do no wrong’
2. This maxim has been the background of the legal principle, mostly now discarded, that a citizen could not sue
the state for any alleged tort.
3. Today total immunity of the state from liability in tort is not acceptable in modern context. Therefore the maxim
should not be interpreted that the king is above the law and whatever he does is necessarily just and lawful
4. Under article 361 of the constitution of INDIA, the president, the governors and rajpramukhs of the state are
not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties of their office

5. The liability of government can be summed as follows

a) The government is liable for the torts of its servants in course of transactions which can be even done by a
private person; trading, selling, timber etc.
b) The government cannot be sued for the acts done by its servants while exercising their sovereign powers.
c) The government is liable to restore property or money wrongfully obtained by its servants
 13

d) The government is not liable for any wrong by done by its servants while performing their official duty however
there are exceptions to it.

Cases where maxim was applied

a) State of M.P. v. Chironjit Lal, in this case the State police made a lathi-charge to prevent a riot. Unfortunately,
the respondents property was badly damaged in the act of lathi-charge done by the state police he filed a suit
against State government for damages. The could rejected his claim and stated that the powers of State
police to conduct a lathi-charge is covered under its sovereign function and if in doing so, the Respondents
property is damaged the state is not liable to compensate it.

Cases where the maxim was not applied

b) State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati , in this case, a driver was employed on probation by the State of Rajasthan.
While he was driving a car to the workshop for repairs, he knocked down a person who was injured by the car
and later resulted to death. The widow of the injured person filled a suit for damages against the State of
Rajasthan. The court held that the State of Rajasthan was liable for the act of its servant on the ground “the
king can do no wrong” maxim had no place in the Constitution of India.

Respondeat superior

The phrase “respondeat superior” means “let the master answer,” and the rule of respondeat superior is also
known as the “master-servant” rule. Respondeat superior is a type of vicarious liability, which allows a third
party to be held liable for a defendant’s negligence in some cases, even if the third party wasn’t there when the
injury occurred and did not cause the injury or make it worse.

It is a doctrine that says a party is responsible for acts of their agent. For example, in the United States, there
are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their
employment.

There are two requirements of the doctrine:

1. A true master-servant and employer-employee relationship must be there so that a master and an employer
may be properly charged with the servant’s and the employee’s act as his own.
2. The tortious act of a servant and an employee must be one within the scope of his employment

Respondeat superior does not apply in every case. To hold an employer to be liable for an employee’s
negligence or bad actions, the injured plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. The injury occurred while the defendant was actually working for the employer;
2. The injury was caused by something the defendant would ordinarily do while working for the employer;
and
3. The employer benefited in some way from whatever the defendant was doing that caused the injury, even
if the benefit was very small or indirect.
 14

In most cases, respondeat superior will not apply to independent contractors, because someone who hires an
independent contractor usually does not have the power to tell the contractor when, where, how, or how long
to work.

If the defendant injured the plaintiff while doing something that wasn’t part of his ordinary work, respondeat
superior may not apply to the employer, even if the defendant was on the clock when the injury occurred.

Case where the maxim was applied

Milner v. Great Nothern Railway, a clerk in the employment of the railway company, had to take parcels of
the passengers from the clock room to the train as a part of his duty. While doing so, one day as he was
coming he ran against another porter, who in turn dashed against the ticket collector and further the ticket
collector collided with the plaintiff wife who suffered injuries and further led to her death. The plaintiff sued
the railway co. and it was held by the court that the company was liable in damages, as at the time of the
accident, the clerk was acting within the scope of his employment.

Case where the maxim was not applied

Deatons ltd. V. Flew, X entered the defendant’s hotel and spoke to bar maid, who threw a glass of beer on his
face. According to X he was very polite in conversing with her, while the maid said that he insulted her. When
the matter went to the court it was held that, although the maid is liable, but the owner of the hotel is not liable
as the maid s act was an independent act and was not connected to the work she was employed for.

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

1. Ubi jus ibi remedium’ is a latin maxim which means where there is a right there is a remedy
2. The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word ‘remedium’
means the right of action in a Court of law.
3. Literal meaning of this maxim is that whenever there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.
4. It also expresses that there is no wrong without a remedy.

1. The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’.
2. If a man has a right, “he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if
injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it;
3. And indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; want of right and want of remedy are
reciprocal.
4. The maxim does not mean, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong. There are
many moral and political wrongs which are not recognized by law and are therefore not actionable.

1. The maxim does not say that there is legal remedy for every wrong.
2. Justice Stephen of England has rightly remarked that the maxim would be more intelligibly and
correctly stated if it were to be reversed to say that where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal
wrong.

Case where the maxim was applied

ASBHY V. WHITE, in this leading English case, the defender an officer at the voting booth, wrongfully
refused to register the vote of the plaintiff who was a qualified voter. The candidate in whose favor the
plaintiff had to cast vote, however got elected and no actual loss was suffered by the rejection of plaintiffs
 15

vote. The court had held that the plaintiff had a right to vote and his legal right was violated by the defendant.
He would therefore have a remedy at law. The plea that rejection of the vote did not result to injury was not
allowed as a defense

Case where the maxim was not applied

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, a writ petition was filled by the dwellers
who had unauthorizely occupied footpaths on the main road in Ahmedabad, as a result the municipal
corporation sought to remove them without granting them an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court
held that the encroacher cannot claim any legal rights so as to have remedy.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

1. A direct translation of the latin phrase volenti non fit injuria is, 'to one who volunteers, no harm is
done'.
2. This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts himself in a dangerous situation
cannot later on sue for any resulting injuries.
3. Volenti non fit injuria is a defense in tort. If a person engages in an event accepting and being totally
aware of the risks inherent in that event, then such person cannot later complain of, or seek
compensation for an injury suffered during the event
4. On the grounds of the maxim, a master is not liable for any injury suffered by his servants who has
undertaken the service knowing the risk involved in it. So also, spectators at cricket or football or
hockey matches or motor races are presumed to undertake the risk which may be reasonably expected
at such events.
5. Under the scope of the act the consent provided can be implied or by conduct or by act.

The maxim has few important exceptions which are as follows

1. No consent can legalise an unlawful act like a duel with a sharp sword, as it is prohibited by the law
2. The maxim has no validity against the breach of a statutory duty
3. The maxim also does not apply to the cases of negligence, for instance one could give consent to the risk
arising out of a surgery, but no person can give consent for an surgery to be conducted negligently

Case where the maxim was applied

Hall v. Brooklands, in this case, a racing car shot over the ralling and killed two spectator. No such accident
had occurred previously in the history of the course. The defendant was sued for negligence by the plaintiff.
The court held that there was no negligence and this type of danger to spectator was with the scope of car
racing events. The defendant was therefore held not liable.

Case where the maxim was not applied

Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant’s horses negligently left unattended in a crowded street, bolted when a boy
threw a stone at them. The plaintiff a constable on duty inside a police station seeing the public in great danger
ran out to stop the horses, and in doing so was severely injured. It was held by the court that he was entitled to
compensation. The defendant was negligent in keeping the horses unattended in a public street. Therefore the
defense of volenti Non Fit Injuria was not be open to him.
 16

Cavet emptor

Caveat emptor is a Latin term that means "let the buyer beware."
The doctrine of Caveat Emptor is an integral part of the Sale of Goods Act, It is specifically defined in Section 16
of the act
"Without a warranty, the buyer must take the risk" is the basic meaning of the phrase caveat emptor.
Garage sales are great examples of caveat emptor.

A seller makes his goods available in the open market. The buyer previews all his options and then accordingly
makes his choice. Now let’s assume that the product turns out to be defective or of inferior quality. This doctrine
says that the seller will not be responsible for this. The buyer himself is responsible for the choice he made.

It is the duty of the buyer to check the quality and the usefulness of the product he is purchasing. If the product
turns out to be defective or does not live up to its potential the seller will not be responsible for this.

An example. A bought a horse from B. A wanted to enter the horse in a race. Turns out the horse was not capable
of running a race on account of being lame. But A did not inform B of his intentions. So B will not be responsible
for the defects of the horse. The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor will apply.

However, the buyer can shift the responsibility to the seller if the three following conditions are fulfilled.

 if the buyer shares with the seller his purpose for the purchase

 the buyer relies on the knowledge and/or technical expertise of the seller

 and the seller sells such goods

Case where the maxim was applied

Goddad v. Hobbes, here, there was a sale of pigs “with all faults” in the market. The buyer bought some of
those pigs and put them with his own pigs. Later it turned out that the pigs which he bought earlier from the
market had typhoid fever as a result the other pig of the buyer also got infected. When he sued the seller it was
held that, in the absence of fraud the buyer had no remedy against the seller.

Case where the maxim was not applied.

Batteo v. Purce , in this case, A agreed to make and deliver a set of false teeth for B. The teeth when made did
not fit well in B’s mouth. The court held that B was entitled to reject the teeth, as they did not fit for the
purpose for which they had been ordered.

Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex

Salus populi suprema lex is a Latin legal maxim that means welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.
The maxim tends to imply the information that law exists to serve common good.
It is a well principles in law that the State is supreme and if State takes any decision in the public benefits and,
that decision, even if, infringes upon the rights and interests of the individuals, would be good in law.
 17

Law relating to the Land Acquisition empowers the State to acquire land for the public purpose. The
Government, subject to the provisions of the statue, can acquire land of any individual.
Courts have time and again expressed that expression “public purpose” is wider than that of “public
necessity”.
Example of the maxim could be stated as a person would be excused by the law for committing a private
injury for the public good as when a house is pulled down to stop a fire from spreading.

Cases where the maxim was applied

EDGINTON v SWINDON COUNCIL, in this case, power was given to the local authority to erect a bus
shelters, and it was found an impossible task to do without taking some private property of people adjacent to
the highway. The court held that no action would lie against the local authority, even the act did not specified
exact locations to construct the shelters. When the legislative gave the power to the local authority, it would
have known such a construction would interrupt the private rights of few individuals. As the local authority
acted reasonably no suit shall lie against it.

Cases where the maxim was not applied

R v. Dudley, Stephens, in this case, three seaman were travelling on a small boat after a ship wreck. For many
days they survived without food and water but if they continue to do same they would have died of hunger. So
two of the seaman killed the third so they could stay alive with eating his flesh. Later they were rescued and
were brought to England. The court held them guilty of murder. The court held that since all human lives are
equal in value, it is unjustified to take another’s life for self-preservation.

Ignorantia Facti Execusat, Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat.

Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses not.

Ignorantia Facti Excusat is a Latin legal maxim that means ignorance of a fact is an excuse. Any act done
under a mistaken impression of a material fact is excused. Acts and contracts made under a mistake or an
ignorance of a material fact are voidable.

However ignorance of law is not an excuse.

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a Latin maxim meaning ignorance of law is not an excuse to a criminal charge.
The maxim, ignorantia juris non excusat is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence in the U.S. It
was also recognized in courts of chancery as well as at common law
The purpose of this maxim is that if ignorance is considered an excuse, a person charged with criminal
offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that s/he is unaware of the law in question to avoid
liability.
Example, if a person wants to start a business he needs to be aware of the rules and regulations and the
procedure involved in doing so. He needs to be aware of the various acts and statues that govern the Labour
Laws. Some of them being the payment of wages, safe and secure working conditions and the compulsory
establishment of grievance cells for both the employees and customers. If at a later date he is brought before
law, he cannot merely deny the claim on the grounds that he was unaware of the law.
 18

A mistake is a slip made by mischance and not by design. Under the English law and honest and reasonable
belief of circumstances which would make that act an innocent one has always been a valid defense. The plea
of mistake of fact as a defense has been recognized by the Indian penal code in sections 76 and 79.

Cases where the maxim was applied

In ref of Tolson’s case, Mrs. Tolson who had been deserted by her husband, and had married again within the
period of seven years, was not held guilty of the offence of bigamy because she had believed on reasonable
grounds that her husband has died, which was a mistake of fact and her act of getting married could not be
regarded as illegal.

Cases where the maxim was not applied

In ref to Price’s case, it was held in the case, that a person who kidnaps a girl under the legal age of consent is
guilty of kidnapping, even though the girl might have given her consent to take her away from her parents and
she have lied about her age. The accused was held guilty and the girls consent was considered immaterial as
she being a minor. Thus in this case the ignorance of fact, the age of girl is not an answer to the criminal
prosecution.

Actus de nemini facit injuriam

1. Actus dei nemini facit injuriam is a Latin legal maxim.

2. This means that an act of God does no injury to anyone. In other words, no one is responsible for
inevitable accidents.
3. Actus dei nemini facit injuriam is also known as Act of God. When an event is caused by the effect of
nature without interference from humans it can be called an act of God. The event foreseen cannot be
considered as act of God.
4. Act of God means an accident or event which happens independently of human intervention and due to
natural causes, such as storm, earthquake, etc., which no human foresight can provide against
5. The essence of the maxim is that it would not be in the interest of justice to hold anyone responsible
for an act which the person has no control on
6. Thus in tort where it is proved that liability in tort has arisen due to an act of nature which is outside
the control of defendant he is executed from liability by placing the defense of maxim
7. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an act of God as “An act occasioned exclusively by violence of nature
without the interference of any human agency.”
8. The act of the God is a kind of inevitable accident with the difference that in the case of Act of God,
the resulting loss arises out of the working of natural forces like exceptionally heavy rainfall, storms,
tempest, tides and volcanic eruptions.
9. Two important essentials are needed for this defense:
• There must be working of natural forces
• The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded
against.

Cases where the maxim was applied

NicholsV.Marsland
Defendant created an artificial lake on his land by damming some natural streams.Due to extraordinary
 19

rainfall,rush of water washed away plaintiff’s bridge.Even it was said that the rainfall was heaviest at that time
till that time.Since it was an act of god and defendant could not guard that,he was not held liable.

Cases where the maxim was not applied

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila devi, in this case, a man was riding a scooter, a branch of tree
suddenly fell on his head, causing injury and further resulted to the death of that man. A suit was filed by his
legal representatives for damages. The court held that the tree was a dead tree and that the corporation should
have taken periodic inspection of trees and should have taken safety precautions to see that the road was safe
for its users. As there was no act of god involved like storm or lightning, the corporation was held liable.

Q4 brief

What is a law report?

Law reports are reports of important cases decide by the superior courts i.e. the Supreme Court and various
High court.
Under 141 of the constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within
the territory of India. The law reports act as medium to communicate the same judgments made by any
superior court to the other courts in the country.
A law report is published at regular intervals and does not include all the decisions of a particular court, but an
important interpretation of law or new principle laid down find a place in the report.

A law reports are of two type’s official law reports & private law reports.
Official law reports are the official publication of the government and private law report are sourced by private
publications
The SCR, Supreme Court reports is an official report published under the authority of Supreme Court, whereas
AIR, All India reporter is a private publication.
Generally law reports are published on monthly basis however here are some that publish every fortnight
[Unreported Judgments] or on weekly basis [Supreme Court cases]

Most law reports follow a standard form where one finds the citation, the name of the court, the name of the
parties, and their pleaders, the case number, the name of judges and the date of judgment before the full text
judgment.

All India Reporter

The All India Reporter tops the charts of the most popular and most widely used law reporters in India.
It is a private publication published monthly by the All India Reporter private Ltd, Nagpur.
It was founded in the year 1992 by the late Mr. V. V. Chitaley.
AIR is a journal covering recent judgments form all branch of law, civil, criminal, revenue etc.

AIR is widely described as the treasure house of Indian case law.

It reports all the latest cases decided by the Supreme Court as well as High Courts of India.
AIR also publishes a yearly manual known as THE AIR MANUAL.
 20

Features
1. The most important feature of the AIR is that it contains headnotes that introduce every judgment. A
lawyer can always refer to these headnotes for a quick look of the entire judgment. This feature is
extremely useful when the judgment runs for several pages even 100’s of pages and a quick review is
thereof urgently required.

2. Cases listed in the judgment are separately listed after the headnotes, followed by the names of the
advocate representing the parties.

3. Another prominent feature is the journal section where one can find interesting and enlightening
articles on various topics of legal interest.

4. In another section, recent acts passed by the parliament are published, so that the judges, the lawyer
can keep themselves updated with the latest legislation in the country.

The extensive coverage and quick reporting of the recent judgment have made the AIR one of the most
familiar name in the legal fraternity.
All the textbooks on Indian law make a reference to citation from the AIR.
It is indeed difficult to imagine legal commentary in India without the reference to the AIR.

Recently AIR have started their online services where one can search case laws and print full text of a
particular judgment for nominal amount.

Supreme court cases.

Familiarly, known as SCC, this law reporter is published on weekly basis from Lucknow and is a publication
of the eastern book co.
The reporter includes reportable as well as non-reportable judgments of the Hon’ Supreme Court.
As it is an exhaustive law reporter it is published in 8 volumes every year, each volume often running into
more than 800 pages.

FEATURES
1. The authentic reporting, its maximum coverage, and its analytical head notes are the important
elements that makes SCC quite user-friendly.

2. The most important feature of the SCC is that it contains headnotes that introduce every judgment. A
lawyer can always refer to these headnotes for a quick look of the entire judgment. This feature is
extremely useful when the judgment runs for several pages even 100’s of pages and a quick review is
thereof urgently required.

3. Another prominent feature is the journal section where one can find interesting and enlightening
articles on various topics of legal interest.

4. In section called as NOTABLE EXCERPTS, it lists interesting quotations from the judgments of the
recently decided cases
 21

5. The SCC (cri) contains useful judgments of the Supreme Court in criminal matter

The web edition of SCC is a recent innovation and contains

1. Indian cases laws, that is the judgments of the Privy Council (up to 1947), the Supreme Court OF India
and the High Courts
2. Indian statutory laws, including rules and regulations
3. Secondary materials, including reports of law commission, debates of constitution assembly, legal
articles etc.
4. International material, including English law reports, human right treaties etc.

Criminal law journal

1. The criminal journal as the name suggest is the collection of the landmark judgments by the Supreme
Court and the high court in the cases of criminal matters.
2. It is a monthly publication, by the All India Reporter private ltd., Nagpur first published in the year
1904.
3. The law reporter is consider to be the gold mine of the judgments by the Indian Courts in matters
involving criminal law.
4. At a moderate price one can access a coverage of more than 5000 pages every year covering criminal
matters from all over the country.

1. The reporter contains a nominal table of the reported cases and subject index which has detailed head
notes of reported cases.
2. Another prominent feature is the journal section where one can find interesting and enlightening
articles on various topics of criminal law.
3. A two or three important decisions are well summarized in few lines on the cover page of each issue.
4. This journal not only accepts articles from lawyers and jurist but also from government officers and
even law students.

Given prompt and accurate reporting, the Criminal Law Journal is an important tool for all practitioners
associated with the field of criminal law.
 22

Audi Alteram Parterm

1. Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other side"

2. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is
given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.

3. Audi alteram partem" is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity or the

principle of natural justice in most legal systems.

4. A party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard’. This is the first
principle of civilized jurisprudence and is accepted by laws of men and god. In short, before an
order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him.

The aim of this principle is to give an opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves.

The maxim explains that no one is to be commended, punished or deprived by the court of law without given a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
A decision taken without following this procedure violates the basic rule of natural justice.

In the words of Fortescue ‘the laws of god and man, both give the party an opportunity to make his defence if
any.

The rule is not only applicable only in judicial or quasi-judical proceedings but also in administrative acts, for
instance if a disciplinary commite of law society receives a complaint against a lawyer, it is bound to give the
lawyer an opportunity if being heard.

The rule laid down by maxim is however a flexible one so as to weather the rule was observed or not
completely depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Cases where maxim was applied

R v/s University of Cambridge,

In this case Dr. Bentley was deprived of his degree by the university of Cambridge on the account of his
alleged misconduct. The university dint allot any opportunity to Dr. Bentley to be heard. The court held the
decision to be void and null on the grounds of the maxim Audi alteram partem

Cases where maxim was not applied

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, a writ petition was filled by the dwellers
who had unauthorizely occupied footpaths on the main road in Ahmedabad, as a result the municipal
corporation sought to remove them without granting them an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court
held that the encroacher cannot claim any legal rights so as to have remedy.
 23

RIGHTS
1. Rights are those essential conditions of social life without which no person can generally
realize his best self.
2. These are the essential conditions for health of both the individual and his society.
3. It is only when people get and enjoy rights that they can develop their personalities and
contributes their best services to the society
4. In simple words, rights are the common claims of people which every civilized society
recognizes as essential claims for their development, and which are therefore enforced by
the state.

1. Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state.
2. Any violation of any legal right is punished by law.
3. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights.
4. These rights can be enforced against individuals and also against the government.
5. All citizens enjoy legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for
getting their legal rights enforced.

Legal Rights are of three types:

1. Civil Rights:
Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized social

life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and equality are civil
rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.

2. Political Rights:
Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the political process.

These enable them to take an active part in the political process. These rights include right to

vote, right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise and oppose the
government. Political rights are really available to the people in a democratic state.

3. Economic Rights:
Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These enable all

citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of every person are
related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without the fulfillment of these no
 24

person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore essential, that every person

must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to social
security in case of illness, physical disability and old age.

WRIT

1. A writ is an order by a court, directing lower courts to either do something or not do

something.
2. The concept of a writ was first developed in England.
3. The Monarch would issue letters which held orders and directions.
4. Since then, writs have been incorporated by various countries into their legal systems.
India has also done so, empowering the Supreme Court and the High Courts to issue such
writs.
The power to issue writs has been granted by the Constitution under Article 266 to the High
Courts and to the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The types of writs are as follows
Habeas Corpus

1. Habeas Corpus literally means ‘to have the body of’. Via this writ, the court can cause
any person who has been detained or imprisoned to be physically brought before the
court.
2. The court then examines the reason of his detention and if there is no legal justification of
his detention, he can be set free.
Such a writ can be issued in following example cases:
 When the person is detained and not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours
 When the person is arrested without any violation of a law.
 When a person is arrested under a law which is unconstitutional
 When detention is done to harm the person
The court has greatly expanded the scope of this writ as it protects the right to life and liberty. In
the case of Sheela Bharse v. State of Maharashtrahe, court expanded the scope of this writ by
adjudging that it is not necessary that the detainee should be the petitioner. An interested party
who has some connection with the case may also do so.
 25

Prohibition

1. The writ of prohibition means that the Supreme Court and High Courts may prohibit the
lower courts such as special tribunals, magistrates, commissions, and other judiciary
officers who are doing something which exceeds to their jurisdiction or acting contrary to
the rule of natural justice.
2. For example if a judicial officer has personal interest in a case, it may hamper the
decision and the course of natural justice.
In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO the Supreme Court held that when a
subordinate court or tribunal is shown decisively that they have acted in excess of their
jurisdiction, the court will issue a writ of prohibition regardless of whether there exists an
alternative remedy or not.

LAW
State is sovereign. The State exercises its sovereign power through its laws. It is through its laws
that he State carries out its all functions. Jurists have defined law differently from different point
of views. Black’s Law Dictionary quotes law to be rules of action or conduct which are issued by
an authority.
In general, law may be described as the system of rules which a particular country or community
recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition
of penalties.
It is a general rule of human conduct in society which is made and enforced by the government’
Each Law is a binding and authoritative rule or value or decision. Its every violation is punished
by the state.
Corporate law
Corporate law also known as business law or enterprise law or sometimes company law.
Corporate Law (corporations law, company law) deals with the formation and operations of
corporations and is related to commercial and contract law.
It refers to the legal practice relating to, or the theory of corporations.

Corporate law encompasses all of the legal issues that corporations can face. Corporations are
subject to numerous regulations they must follow in order to enoy the tax and other benefits
corporations receive. Most states require corporations to conduct annual meetings with their
shareholders, and many require more frequent meetings of the board of directors and the
corporation's officers. Most corporations have an attorney present at all of these meetings to
ensure that the corporation complies with all state and federal requirements.
 26

In addition to these unique corporate law issues, corporations also face all of the legal issues that
other businesses face. These issues can include employment law issues, contract disputes,
product liability, intellectual property management, and others. Smaller corporations may be able
to hire a single attorney with broad experience to handle all of the corporation's legal issues.
Larger corporations, however, may need a team of lawyers with different specialties to handle
daily contract, employment, and business issues.

Criminal law

Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.

criminal law broadly refers to federal and state laws that make certain behavior illegal and
punishable by imprisonment and/or fines.

criminal law broadly refers to federal and state laws that make certain behavior illegal and
punishable by imprisonment and/or fines.

The traditional approach to criminal law has been that a crime is an act that is morally wrong.
The purpose of criminal sanctions was to punish the offender for harm done.

A Criminal law governs crimes Crimes are generally referred to as offenses against the
state. Criminal law is governed by Indian penal Code, Crpc, evicence Act etc.

The term criminal law means crimes that may establish punishments. In contrast, Criminal
Procedure describes the process through which the criminal laws are enforced. For example, the
law prohibiting murder is a substantive criminal law. The manner in which government enforces
this substantive law through the gathering of evidence and prosecution is generally considered a
procedural matter.
27