Role of Lok Adalats in the Indian Legal System
Lok Adalats, or "People’s Courts," play a pivotal role in India's legal system as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. They are designed to provide speedy, cost-effective, and accessible justice to the public, particularly for those who may not have the means to pursue lengthy litigation in traditional courts.
Key Functions and Features
Amicable Settlement of Disputes: Lok Adalats facilitate the resolution of disputes—both pending in courts and at the pre-litigation stage—through compromise and mutual agreement, under the supervision of judicial officers or legal experts.
Statutory Backing: They have statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Awards made by Lok Adalats are deemed to be decrees of a civil court, making them final and binding on all parties. No appeal lies against such awards, ensuring swift closure of cases.
Jurisdiction: Lok Adalats can handle a wide range of cases, including civil disputes, family and matrimonial matters, labor disputes, land acquisition, bank recovery, and compoundable criminal offenses. However, they cannot adjudicate non-compoundable criminal offenses.
Accessibility and Cost Effectiveness: There are no court fees, and if a case pending in court is settled at a Lok Adalat, the court fee already paid is refunded. This makes the process especially beneficial for economically weaker and marginalized sections of society.
Reduction of Court Backlog: By resolving cases expeditiously, Lok Adalats significantly reduce the burden on traditional courts. For example, over 1.14 crore cases were resolved during the 3rd National Lok Adalat in 2024.Promotion of Social Harmony: The emphasis on reconciliation and compromise helps maintain social harmony and avoids the adversarial nature of regular litigation.
Procedural Flexibility: Lok Adalats are not bound by strict procedural laws or the Evidence Act, allowing for a more informal and flexible approach to dispute resolution.
Permanent Lok Adalats
The 2002 amendment to the Legal Services Authorities Act introduced Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services. These bodies can decide cases even if parties fail to reach a settlement, further enhancing access to justice in essential service sectors.

Conclusion
Lok Adalats represent a successful adaptation of ADR within the Indian legal system, bridging the gap between formal judicial processes and the socio-economic realities of the people. They embody the constitutional mandate of equal access to justice and have become an indispensable tool for expeditious and amicable dispute resolution in India

Yes, under Indian law, a minor can be tried as an adult for heinous offences, but only under specific conditions and through a defined legal process.
Legal Framework
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows for juveniles aged 16 to 18 years who are accused of committing a heinous offence (defined as crimes with a minimum punishment of 7 years or more) to be tried as adults

es, a case can be withdrawn after it has been filed, but the process and requirements differ for civil and criminal cases.
Withdrawal of Civil Cases
Who can withdraw: The plaintiff (the person who filed the case) can withdraw a civil suit at any stage after filing, either in whole or in part.
Process: The plaintiff must apply to the court for withdrawal, stating the reasons.
If the court is satisfied, it may grant permission to withdraw the suit or part of the claim.
If the plaintiff withdraws without court permission, they may be liable for costs and may lose the right to file a fresh suit on the same matter.
If the withdrawal is due to a formal defect or other sufficient reason, the court may grant permission to file a new suit on the same subject.
Withdrawal of Criminal Cases
Who can withdraw:
In cases initiated by a private complaint (not by police), the complainant can apply for withdrawal before the final order is passed.
In cases prosecuted by the state (through a public prosecutor), only the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor can apply for withdrawal, with the court's consent.

Process for Private Complaints:
The complainant or their authorized representative files an application before the magistrate, stating the case details and reasons for withdrawal.
The magistrate considers the application and, if satisfied, allows withdrawal and acquits the accused.
If not satisfied, the court may refuse and continue the trial.
Process for State-Prosecuted Cases:
The Public Prosecutor applies to the court for withdrawal from prosecution, explaining the reasons.
The court must be satisfied that withdrawal serves the interests of justice and public interest before granting permission.
The court’s consent is mandatory; withdrawal cannot be done solely on the prosecutor’s or government’s decision.
FIR Withdrawal:
An FIR (First Information Report) cannot be simply withdrawn by the complainant.
The High Court may quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC if it finds the case is baseless, settled, or continuation would not serve justice

The limitation period for filing a civil case in India is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The specific period depends on the nature of the claim.
General civil suits (such as for recovery of money or breach of contract): 3 years from the date the cause of action arises.
Suits relating to possession or recovery of immovable property: 12 years.
Suits for compensation for torts (such as defamation or personal injury): 1 year.
Some property-related cases (like redemption of mortgaged property): Up to 30 years.
The limitation period begins from the date when the right to sue accrues (the cause of action arises). If a suit is filed after the limitation period, it may be dismissed unless the delay is condoned by the court for sufficient cause (mainly for appeals and applications, not for original suits

The first step a person should take before filing a criminal case is to identify the nature of the offense (cognizable or non-cognizable) and collect all relevant evidence and details about the incident. This includes making a detailed note of what happened, when and where it occurred, and who was involved, as well as gathering supporting materials like documents, photographs, or witness statements.
If the offense is cognizable (serious crimes such as theft, assault, or murder), the next step is to approach the nearest police station to file a First Information Report (FIR), either orally or in writing. The FIR serves as the official starting point for police investigation. For non-cognizable offenses, or if the police refuse to register an FIR, the person can approach the court directly with a private complaint.
Consulting a lawyer before filing the complaint is also advisable to ensure the correct procedure is followed and all necessary legal details are included.

Any Indian citizen or organization can file a PIL in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in any High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution .The petitioner does not need to be directly affected by the issue; PIL is an exception to the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing even those not personally aggrieved to approach the court for matters affecting the public at large .Courts themselves can also initiate PILs suo motu (on their own motion) if they identify a matter of public interest requiring intervention.
Basic Requirements for Filing a PIL:
Public Interest: The subject matter must concern the public or a section of the community whose legal rights or interests are affected. PILs cannot be filed for personal or private interests.
Good Faith: The petition must be filed in good faith, genuinely seeking to redress a public wrong, and not for personal gain or publicity. Courts scrutinize PILs to prevent misuse by "busy bodies" or those with ulterior motives.
Jurisdiction: PILs can only be filed in the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Courts (Article 226) for enforcement of fundamental or legal rights.
Sufficient Interest: The petitioner must demonstrate a "sufficient interest" in the matter, ensuring the case is not frivolous or vexatious.
Procedural Compliance: While courts allow procedural flexibility, the basic judicial processes and principles must still be followed.

Inchoate Stamped Instrument,” which is a concept primarily from the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA), not the Black Money Act. Under section 20 of the NIA, when a person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments—either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument—they give prima facie authority to the holder to make or complete the instrument for any amount not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp.

Who is liable?

The person who signs and delivers the inchoate (incomplete or blank) stamped instrument is liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which they signed, to any holder in due course for such amount as may be filled in, provided the amount does not exceed the value covered by the stamp. In other words, liability attaches to the person who signs the blank or incomplete instrument, not to the person who later fills it in.

This principle is distinct from the Black Money Act, which deals with undisclosed foreign income and assets and does not address inchoate instruments

Under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, the initiation of prosecution is governed by strict statutory requirements and is independent of certain other procedural steps, but not all requirements are optional.

Key Legal Requirements for Prosecution
Sanction Requirement:
Prosecution for offences under sections 49 to 53 of the Black Money Act cannot be initiated except with the prior sanction of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be. The law specifically provides this safeguard to prevent arbitrary prosecution and to ensure that only meritorious cases proceed.

Wilful Intent:
For certain offences—such as wilful attempt to evade tax under section 51—the law explicitly requires a wilful intent or a culpable mental state. Section 51(1) states that a person must "wilfully attempt in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act" for the stringent punishment (rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years, extendable to ten years) to apply.

However, there are other offences under the Act (such as failure to furnish return or information about foreign assets under sections 49 and 50) where the law does not always require proof of wilful intent for prosecution, but the specific language of the offence must be reviewed.

Independence from Assessment Proceedings:
The initiation of prosecution under section 51 is not dependent on the completion of assessment proceedings or a formal determination of tax evasion by the tax department. Prosecution can proceed if the conditions under section 51 are fulfilled, regardless of whether assessment proceedings have been concluded.

Summary Table
Requirement Is it Necessary? Legal Basis/Explanation
Prior Sanction Yes Required for prosecution under sections 49–53.
Wilful Intent (for evasion) For section 51 Must be proven for "wilful attempt to evade tax".
Completion of Assessment No Not required for prosecution under section 51.
Conclusion
Prosecution under the Black Money Act cannot be sustained without the prior sanction of the prescribed authority for offences under sections 49 to 53. For the most serious offence of wilful attempt to evade tax (section 51), wilful intent must be established—prosecution would not be legally sustainable in the absence of such intent for this specific offence. However, for other offences under the Act (such as failure to furnish information), wilful intent may not always be required, but the specific statutory language and intent must be examined in each case

Refund of Unutilized ITC on Input Services Under Inverted Duty Structure Post VKC Footsteps Judgment
1. Pre-VKC Footsteps Position
Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act allowed refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) only for inputs (not input services or capital goods) under an inverted duty structure (where input tax rate > output tax rate).

Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules restricted refunds to ITC on inputs only, excluding input services.

Controversy: Businesses argued this was discriminatory and violated Article 14 (Equality) of the Constitution.

2. Supreme Court’s Ruling in VKC Footsteps v. Union of India (2021)
Key Holding:

5:4 Majority: Upheld Rule 89(5), denying refund of ITC on input services under inverted duty structure.

Reasoning:

Parliament intended to limit refunds to inputs only to prevent misuse.

No constitutional violation as classification between inputs and input services was based on intelligible differentia.

Dissenting View (Minority):

Exclusion of input services was arbitrary and violated Article 14.

3. Post-VKC Footsteps Legal Position
Refund Permissibility:

Only ITC on inputs (not input services) is refundable under inverted duty structure.

Input services & capital goods remain ineligible for refund under Section 54(3)(ii).

Exceptions:

Exporters can claim refund under Rule 96 (IGST refund mechanism).

Special cases (e.g., inverted duty due to GST rate changes) may warrant reconsideration.

4. Government’s Clarificatory Amendments (Post-Judgment)
No legislative change post-VKC Footsteps to include input services.

CBIC Circulars reiterate strict adherence to Rule 89(5).

5. Practical Implications for Businesses
Tax Planning:

Optimize procurement to maximize input-based ITC (e.g., raw materials over services).

Explore alternative refund mechanisms (e.g., export benefits).

Litigation Strategy:

Pending claims for input services refunds are likely untenable post-VKC Footsteps.

Constitutional challenges (if any) must argue new grounds (e.g., economic distortion).

6. Comparative Global Perspective
Malaysia & Canada: Allow broader ITC refunds, including services.

EU VAT: No inverted duty structure; refunds are generally permissible.

7. Conclusion
Current Law: Refund of unutilized ITC on input services under inverted duty structure remains barred post-VKC Footsteps.

Future Outlook:

Legislative amendment needed to expand refund eligibility.

Industry representations for parity between inputs and input services may gain traction.

Recommendations for Businesses:

Reassess supply chains to minimize input services reliance where refunds are critical.

Monitor GST Council meetings for potential policy shifts.

Explore judicial workarounds (e.g., writ petitions on fresh constitutional grounds)

Simultaneous Criminal Proceedings (S. 138 NI Act) & Civil Recovery Suits: Permissibility & Abuse of Process
1. Legal Position on Parallel Proceedings
Explicitly Permitted: Indian law allows simultaneous criminal proceedings (S. 138 NI Act) and civil suits (Money Recovery) for the same dishonoured cheque.

Rationale:

S. 138 NI Act is a criminal remedy (punitive: imprisonment/fine).

Civil suit is a contractual remedy (compensatory: debt recovery + interest).

Key Precedents:

K.M. Ibrahim v K.P. Mohammed (2009 SC): Criminal and civil proceedings can coexist.

G. Sagar Suri v State of UP (2000 SC): No bar unless proceedings are malicious or oppressive.

2. Conditions to Avoid Abuse of Process
While parallel cases are valid, courts may intervene if:

No Debt/Liability Exists: If the civil court conclusively holds that no legally enforceable debt exists, the S. 138 case may be quashed (*M/s Indus Airways v M/s Magnum Aviation, 2014 SC*).

Malicious Prosecution: If the complainant files a false S. 138 case despite settling the debt, courts may stay criminal proceedings (*M/s Meters and Instruments v Kanchan Mehta, 2017 SC*).

Oppressive Tactics: Using S. 138 solely to harass the drawer despite a pending civil suit may invite judicial scrutiny (Krishna Lal Chawla v State of UP, 2021 SC).

3. Key Judicial Principles
Presumption of Debt (S. 139 NI Act): The drawer is presumed liable unless disproven (independent of civil proceedings).

No Double Jeopardy (Art. 20(2)): Applies only to same offence (civil and criminal actions are distinct).

Burden of Proof: In S. 138, the complainant must prove debt liability; in civil suits, the standard is balance of probabilities.

4. Practical Implications
For Creditors: Can pursue both routes for faster recovery and deterrence.

For Debtors: Must prove abuse (e.g., no debt, settled claim) to stall criminal proceedings.

5. Conclusion
Parallel proceedings are legally valid and do not inherently amount to multiplicity or abuse.

Courts intervene only if:

Civil suit conclusively negates liability, or

Criminal case is proven vexatious.

Strategic Note:

Debtors should seek early civil adjudication to potentially quash S. 138 cases.

Creditors should ensure documentary proof of debt to withstand scrutiny in both forums