An inchoate instrument is incomplete but legally recognized under certain conditions, while an ambiguous instrument is unclear or uncertain in its terms, making interpretation difficult. An inchoate instrument is incomplete, such as a signed and stamped instrument delivered with some particulars missing, while an ambiguous instrument is unclear on its face.

In contract law, an offer [section 2(a)] and acceptance [section 2(c)]are essential elements that create a legally binding agreement. An offer is a proposal made by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree), while acceptance is the offeree's agreement to the terms of that offer, forming a legally binding contract.

As per section 2(d) of Indian contract act, 1872 defines consideration as an amount or something of value in return of something. It is an act, abstinence, or promise made by the promisee or any other person, at the desire of the promisor.
This act, abstinence, or promise is the return or value for the performance of the contract. Essentially, it's the benefit or return exchanged in a contract.

Judicial Activism
Definition: A philosophy where judges actively interpret and apply the law to reflect contemporary values and address societal needs, even if it means intervening in areas traditionally left to the legislature or executive.
Example from Indian Case Law: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court, in the absence of specific legislation, issued guidelines on sexual harassment in the workplace to be followed by employers until legislation was enacted.
Judicial Restraint
Definition: A philosophy where judges limit their role to interpreting the law as written, without creating new policies or interpreting it in a way that goes beyond the original intent of the framers.
Example from Indian Case Law:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court held that certain matters are political in nature and not subject to judicial review, respecting the separation of powers and avoiding interference in political decisions.

Article 22(4) states that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The detainee is entitled to know the grounds of his detention.

Keshavananda Bharti is the landmark judgment that established the amendability of the basic structure of the constitution, ensuring that the fundamental features of the constitution remans intact.

The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid, with the Supreme Court upholding its legality in landmark judgments like Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. While the right to life (Article 21) is a fundamental right, the court has interpreted it as allowing for deprivation of life through a legally prescribed procedure, including the death penalty in certain cases. The "rarest of rare cases" doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, guides the application of capital punishment, emphasizing its exceptional nature.

The Indian legal system balances the rights of accused individuals with the rights of victims through a framework that emphasizes fair trials, due process, and the protection of basic human rights, alongside provisions for victim compensation and support.

There are two equitable remedies available for breach of contract:
1. Specific performance
2. Injunction as preventive relief
The doctrine of specific performance is an equitable remedy granted by a court in breach of contract cases, compelling a party to fulfill their contractual obligations instead of simply awarding monetary damages.

The law governing the legal position of adverse possession in India is based on Limitation Act, 1963. The requirements of adverse possession are as follows:
1. Continuous and uninterrupted possession
2. The possession must be for a definite period of 12 years for private property and 30 years for government property.
3. Adverse possessor must disregard the original owner's rights
4. Peaceful possession with open claim
Effect on property rights;
Transfer of Ownership: Successful adverse possession can lead to the transfer of ownership from the original owner to the adverse possessor.
Extinguishment of Original Owner's Rights: The original owner's right to recover possession is extinguished after the adverse possessor's claim is established.
Potential for Unjust Outcomes: The doctrine of adverse possession can sometimes lead to unjust outcomes, especially if the original owner was unaware of the possession or could not afford to take legal action.
Challenges in Application: The subjective nature of determining hostility and the potential for fraudulent claims can pose challenges in the fair application of adverse possession laws.