On February 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud reprimanded a law student for filing a caveat in “Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Others” petition.
- The above case seeks menstrual leave for female students and working women across Indian institutions.
- The bench said that “this is a publicity-oriented caveat” and the student had “no business here.”
What is a caveat?
- In legal terms it connotes a “formal notice requesting the court to refrain from taking some specified action without giving prior notice to the person lodging the caveat.”
- The person lodging the caveat is called a “caveator”.
- Inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, added after the Law Commission’s recommendation, Section 148A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) explains when a person has a right to lodge a caveat as where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.
- The caveator or the person lodging is also required to serve a notice of the caveat by “registered post” to the person on whose plea they are lodging the application.
- The term “caveat” is not expressly defined anywhere except in the Calcutta High Court’s 1978 ruling in “Nirmal Chandra Dutta vs Girindra Narayan Roy”.
- In this case, the court defined the term as a “caution or warning giving notice to the Court not to issue any grant or take any step without notice being given to the party lodging the caveat. It is a precautionary measure taken against the grant of probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, by the person lodging the caveat.”
