LAWACADEMY

The writs of certiorari, mandamus, and quo-warranto are judicial remedies that can be issued by the Supreme Court or the High Courts under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. They are used to enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens and to check the legality and validity of the actions of the lower courts, tribunals, or public authorities. Here is a brief explanation of each writ with some examples: Writ of certiorari : This writ is issued to quash an order or decision of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority that has exceeded its jurisdiction, violated the principles of natural justice, or committed an error of law. For example, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had reduced the punishment of a corrupt officer from dismissal to compulsory retirement.  Writ of mandamus : This writ is issued to command a public official, body, or authority to perform a duty that he or she ...

  Yagya Purush v. Maluk Das, (1966) 1 SCR 357 (India). The facts and judgment of the case are as follows: The appellants, who were the followers of the Swaminarayan sect, filed a suit to claim that their temples were not open to Harijans (Dalits), as they professed a different religion from Hinduism. The respondent, who was the president of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh, challenged this claim and asserted the rights of Harijans to enter the Swaminarayan temples under the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants, but the High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and held that the Swaminarayan sect was not a separate religion, but a reformist movement within Hinduism, and that its temples were subject to the 1956 Act. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the 1956 Act, which aimed to eradicate the practice o...

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MITAKSHARA & DAYABHAGA: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga are two major schools of Hindu law that differ in their approach to property inheritance and the distribution of assets among family members. Here are some of the main differences: Mitakshara recognizes the joint family system and the coparcenary property, which is the ancestral property shared by the male members of the family. Dayabhaga does not recognize the joint family system and the coparcenary property, but only the individual and separate property of the family members. Mitakshara follows the principle of survivorship, which means that on the death of a coparcener, his share devolves to the surviving coparceners by operation of law. Dayabhaga follows the principle of partition, which means that on the death of a person, his property is divided among his heirs according to his will or the law. Mitakshara gives primacy to the birthright of the sons over the widow’s right in the inheritance of the father’s pro...

SCHOOLS OF HINDU LAW: There are two main schools of Hindu law: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga . They differ in their interpretation and application of the ancient sources of Hindu law, especially on the matters of property inheritance and family relations. They also have four sub-schools each, based on the regional variations and commentaries. Here is a brief summary of the schools and sub-schools of Hindu law: Mitakshara : This school is based on the commentary of Vijnaneswara on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, called the Mitakshara. It prevails in most parts of India, except Bengal and Assam. It recognizes the joint family system and the coparcenary property, which is the ancestral property shared by the male members of the family. It follows the principle of survivorship, which means that on the death of a coparcener, his share devolves to the surviving coparceners by operation of law. It gives primacy to the birthright of the sons over the widow’s right in the inheritance of the father’s propert...

Evolution of Industrial Legislation in India Industrial legislation in India has its roots in the colonial era, when the British government enacted various laws to regulate the working conditions, wages, and rights of the Indian labour force. Some of the earliest laws were the Factories Act of 1881, the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1897, the Trade Disputes Act of 1908, and the Trade Unions Act of 1926. These laws were mainly aimed at protecting the interests of the British employers and maintaining social order, rather than promoting the welfare of the Indian workers. However, after the First World War, the Indian labour movement gained momentum and demanded better working conditions, higher wages, and more political rights. The Royal Commission on Labour in India (1929-31) was appointed to examine the labour problems and suggest reforms. The Commission recommended the enactment of several laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act of 1936, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act ...