Law of India in the context of "Barrister"

The politics and government of India work within the framework of the country's Constitution, which was adopted on November 26, 1949, by the Constituent Assembly. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. India is a parliamentary secular democratic republic, described as a “sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic” in its constitution, in which the president of India is the head of state and first citizen of India and the Prime Minister of India is the head of government. It is based on the federal structure of government, although the word is not used in the Constitution itself. India follows the dual polity system, i.e. federal in nature, that consists of the central authority at the centre and states at the periphery. The Constitution defines the organizational powers and limitations of both central and state governments; it is well recognised, fluid (with the Preamble of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and principles of liberty, equality, justice, and fraternity, being rigid and to dictate further amendments to the Constitution) and considered supreme, i.e. the laws of the nation must conform to it. India is officially declared a secular and socialist state as per the Constitution.

There is a provision for a bicameral legislature consisting of an upper house, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), which represents the states of the Indian federation, and a lower house, the Lok Sabha (House of the People), which represents the people of India as a whole. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, which is headed by the Supreme Court. The court's mandate is to protect the Constitution, to settle disputes between the central government and the states, to settle inter-state disputes, to nullify any central or state laws that go against the Constitution and to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, issuing writs for their enforcement in cases of violation.

The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India, and the longest written national constitution in the world. The document lays down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens.

It espouses constitutional supremacy (not parliamentary supremacy found in the United Kingdom, since it was created by a constituent assembly rather than Parliament) and was adopted with a declaration in its preamble. The Indian Constitution does not contain a provision to limit the powers of the parliament to amend the constitution. However, the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that there were certain features of the Constitution so integral to its functioning and existence that they could never be cut out of the constitution (known as the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine).

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of a prerogative writ in England, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review.

Derived from the English common law, certiorari is prevalent in countries using, or influenced by, the common law. It has evolved in the legal system of each nation, as court decisions and statutory amendments are made. In modern law, certiorari is recognized in many jurisdictions, including England and Wales (now called a "quashing order"), Canada, India, Ireland, the Philippines and the United States. With the expansion of administrative law in the 19th and 20th centuries, the writ of certiorari has gained broader use in many countries, to review the decisions of administrative bodies as well as lower courts.

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (known as examination-in-chief in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan) and may be followed by a redirect (known as re-examination in the aforementioned countries). A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (this may vary by jurisdiction).