The Indian Constitution is both rigid and flexible. It allows for amendments through a detailed process, making it rigid compared to ordinary laws. However, it also provides for simple amendments in some cases, showing flexibility. For example, the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority for certain provisions like changing names of states, while important changes like altering fundamental rights need a two-thirds majority and ratification by states, as seen in the 42nd and 44th Amendments.

Yes, registration of marriage is not compulsory under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, but it is strongly recommended for legal proof and administrative purposes:
Process:-
1. Apply at the local Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) office with the required documents (ID proof, photographs, marriage certificate from priest, etc.).
2. Fill out the application form and submit it along with witness statements.
3. After verification, the marriage is registered and a certificate is issued.

The main procedural differences between arbitration in civil law and common law jurisdictions are:
1. In civil law systems, arbitrators often take an active role in managing the case and gathering evidence, while in common law systems, the parties generally drive the process, and arbitrators act more like neutral judges.
2. Civil law jurisdictions typically limit or avoid discovery, relying heavily on written evidence. In contrast, common law systems allow broader discovery, including document exchange and witness cross-examination.
3. Proceedings in civil law countries emphasize written submissions and may have minimal oral hearings, whereas common law arbitrations place greater importance on oral arguments and live testimony.
4. Civil law relies on codified statutes, with little use of precedent, while common law systems give weight to previous judicial decisions and case law.
5. Legal costs in civil law arbitration are usually lower due to streamlined procedures, whereas common law arbitration can be more expensive due to extended hearings and discovery processes.

Judicial activism is when courts actively interpret the Constitution or laws to protect rights or correct injustices, sometimes stepping into policy areas. For example, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine to limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Judicial restraint is when courts avoid interfering in decisions made by the legislature or executive, respecting the separation of powers. For example, in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court carefully interpreted the power to dismiss state governments without overstepping.

Offer: A clear proposal by one party to make a contract on specific terms.

Acceptance: The other party’s unconditional agreement to those terms.

Together, they create an agreement, which is essential for a contract.

Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines a “Promissory Note.”
It states:
A promissory note is an instrument in writing (not being a banknote or a currency note), containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.

The Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof mainly on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in certain cases, the burden shifts to the accused to prove specific defenses such as insanity or self-defense. The Act also requires parties to prove facts especially within their knowledge. Courts may draw presumptions based on common experience. While this system aims to balance the rights of the accused and the need for justice, shifting the burden can sometimes undermine the presumption of innocence and affect the fairness of the trial.

The Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof mainly on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in certain cases, the burden shifts to the accused to prove specific defenses such as insanity or self-defense. The Act also requires parties to prove facts especially within their knowledge. Courts may draw presumptions based on common experience. While this system aims to balance the rights of the accused and the need for justice, shifting the burden can sometimes undermine the presumption of innocence and affect the fairness of the trial.

Constitutional safeguards against misuse of preventive detention laws:
1. Article 22
a)Detained person must be informed of grounds immediately.
b)Right to consult a lawyer.
c)Must be produced before an Advisory Board within 12 days.
Maximum detention without approval is 3 months.
2. Judicial Review
Courts can examine if detention is legal and not arbitrary.
3. Compensation
Courts may award compensation if detention is illegal.
These ensure preventive detention is not misused.

The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **“Basic Structure Doctrine”** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliament’s amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.