Before serving notice to the government or public authority in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), several procedural steps must be followed. These include drafting the PIL petition, gathering evidence, consulting with a lawyer (though not mandatory), and filing the petition with the appropriate court.

To register a trademark and protect their brand, small business owners should conduct a trademark search to ensure their mark is unique, file a trademark application with the relevant government office, and pay the required fees. They can also seek assistance from a trademark attorney or online trademark filing service. After registration, they can monitor their trademark and take action against potential infringements.

Engaging contract labour in India is regulated primarily under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. This law aims to regulate the employment of contract workers and protect their rights while ensuring compliance by employers and contractors. Here are the key licensing and compliance requirements for engaging contract labour:

Licensing Requirements:
Obtaining a License:
Any establishment that employs 20 or more contract workers must obtain a license from the appropriate government authority before engaging contract labour. The license is typically granted by the Chief Labour Commissioner or a designated officer.

Application Process:
The contractor must apply in the prescribed form providing details such as the name of the establishment, nature of work, number of contract workers employed, wages paid, and compliance with labour laws.

Validity and Renewal:
Licenses are granted for a specific period and must be renewed before expiry. Operating without a valid license is illegal and can lead to penalties.

Compliance Requirements:
Wage Payment:
The contractor must pay wages to contract workers on time and not less than the minimum wages fixed by the government for the relevant industry or area.

Working Conditions:
The contractor and the principal employer must ensure that contract workers have adequate safety measures, health facilities, and welfare amenities as prescribed under labour laws.

Maintenance of Registers and Records:
Contractors are required to maintain proper registers of employment, wages, attendance, and fines imposed, which must be available for inspection by authorities.

Compliance with Other Labour Laws:
Contract labour and their contractors must adhere to applicable laws, including the Payment of Wages Act, Employees’ Compensation Act, Factories Act, and Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

Principal Employer’s Responsibility:
Although the contractor is the direct employer, the principal employer is responsible for ensuring that the contractor complies with all licensing and labour law provisions. The principal employer may be held liable for violations.

Abolition of Contract Labour:
The Act empowers the government to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any establishment or process where it is feasible to do so, promoting direct employment.

Strikes and lockouts are important concepts in industrial law that affect the relationship between employers and employees. Their regulation aims to balance the rights of workers to protest and bargain collectively with the need to maintain industrial peace and economic productivity.

Legal Requirements of Strikes and Lockouts:
In India, strikes and lockouts are primarily governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Some key legal requirements include:

Notice Period:
Before a strike or lockout can legally commence, the party (workers or employer) must give a notice of at least 14 days to the opposing party and the relevant government authority if the industrial establishment is a public utility service. This notice allows time for conciliation or settlement.

Authorized Strikes/Lockouts:
Strikes and lockouts are considered legal only if they comply with the procedural requirements and are in connection with a trade dispute. Unauthorized strikes or lockouts may be treated as illegal.

Public Utility Services:
Strikes in public utility services (like transport, hospitals, electricity) are more strictly regulated. Such strikes are generally prohibited without prior approval from the government.

Prohibition during Certain Periods:
Strikes and lockouts may be prohibited during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, adjudication by labor courts, or arbitration.

Consequences of Strikes and Lockouts:
Legal Consequences:

If a strike or lockout is illegal or unauthorized, workers or employers may face penalties, including fines or dismissal.

During a legal strike, workers have the right to abstain from work without losing their employment, though wages may not be paid for the strike period.

Employers may impose lockouts as a retaliatory measure but must follow the law to avoid liability.

Economic Consequences:
Strikes can lead to loss of productivity, wages, and profits for both parties. Lockouts similarly halt production and can cause financial strain on workers and employers alike.

Industrial Relations Impact:
Strikes and lockouts can affect the overall industrial climate, either strengthening collective bargaining or leading to prolonged disputes and mistrust.

Under Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the person who is competent to transfer property must satisfy two main conditions:

The transferor must be of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject. In India, this means the person must be at least 18 years old, as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875.

The transferor must be of sound mind at the time of making the transfer. This means the person should have the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.

However, even if the person satisfies these conditions, they must also have the right to transfer the property in question. For example, a person cannot transfer property that does not belong to them or that they are not authorized to transfer.

Hence, to be competent to transfer property under Section 7, a person must be a major, of sound mind, and legally entitled to transfer the property. If any of these conditions is not met, the transfer may be declared void or voidable.

The Doctrine of Lis Pendens is a legal principle that aims to protect parties involved in a property dispute by ensuring that any transaction involving the property during the pendency of the lawsuit does not affect the rights of the parties involved in that suit. The term "Lis Pendens" means "a pending lawsuit."

Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, this doctrine holds that any transfer of property that occurs after a suit concerning that property has been filed is subject to the outcome of the suit. This means that if there is an ongoing legal dispute about ownership, possession, or any right related to the property, any subsequent sale or transfer of that property will be void against the person who has filed the suit, even if the transfer is made to a third party in good faith.

The primary effect of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens on property transactions is that it freezes the title of the property during the pendency of the litigation. Buyers or transferees who acquire property while a suit is pending must take notice of the ongoing dispute and are bound by its eventual decision. Consequently, they cannot claim ownership or rights superior to those of the plaintiff in the pending suit.

This doctrine serves several important purposes: it prevents buyers from acquiring property with hidden defects in title due to ongoing disputes; it discourages fraudulent transfers meant to evade the effect of litigation; and it promotes judicial economy by avoiding multiple conflicting claims over the same property.

Under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any absolute restraint on alienation of property is considered void. This means that if a transfer of property is made subject to a condition that completely prohibits the transferee (recipient of the property) from transferring the property further, such a condition is legally unenforceable.

Meaning of Absolute Restraint:
An absolute restraint is a condition that entirely restricts the transferee's right to sell, gift, mortgage, lease, or otherwise transfer the property. For example, if a gift deed says "A gives land to B on the condition that B shall never sell it," that condition is void under Section 10.

Legal Effect:
The transfer itself remains valid, but the condition imposing absolute restraint is void.
The transferee gets full ownership rights, including the right to transfer.
Partial restraints, if reasonable (such as a restriction for a certain time or purpose), may be valid in some cases.

Exceptions:
There are exceptions under Section 10 itself and other provisions:
Leasehold interests: Restrictions on transfer in leases are valid.
Transfer to women under Hindu Law: Traditionally, under certain personal laws, restrictions were allowed (though largely outdated today).
Trusts and certain settlements: If property is held in trust, the trustee's powers may be lawfully limited.

Judicial View:
Courts have consistently held that the right to transfer property is a key incident of ownership. In Rosher v. Rosher (a British case often cited in India), a condition that prevented the sale of property except to a specific person at a fixed price was held void.

In disputes regarding the validity of a property transfer, the burden of proof lies primarily on the party asserting the validity of the transfer. This means that if one party claims that a property has been lawfully and validly transferred (through sale, gift, will, etc.), they must prove that the transfer was executed in accordance with the law.

Under Indian law, particularly the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the relevant principles are:

Section 101: "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist."
So, the person who asserts the validity of a transaction must prove it.

In the context of property transfer, the person claiming ownership through transfer must usually prove:

The existence and authenticity of the transfer document (e.g., sale deed, gift deed),

That the transfer was done voluntarily and with valid consideration (if required),

Compliance with legal formalities such as registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and, where applicable, payment of stamp duty.

In cases involving allegations of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, the burden may shift. For instance, if a person claims that a property transfer was made under undue influence or fraud, they must prove those allegations. However, if there is a fiduciary relationship (e.g., between parent and child or lawyer and client), the burden may shift to the transferee to prove that the transfer was made fairly and without pressure.

In case of gifts, especially from elderly or ill persons, courts often scrutinize the circumstances of the transfer, and the donee may be required to prove that the gift was made voluntarily and with full understanding.

The legal maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” translates to “an act does not make one guilty unless there is a guilty mind.” This principle lies at the very heart of criminal law, emphasizing that for an individual to be held criminally liable, two essential elements must usually be present:

Actus reus (the guilty act), and

Mens rea (the guilty mind or intention).

In other words, it is not enough that someone committed a wrongful act; there must also be a criminal intention or negligence accompanying the act. This maxim ensures that moral blameworthiness is considered before punishing someone under the law.

The significance of this maxim in criminal law is profound. It forms the foundation of modern criminal jurisprudence, preventing individuals from being punished for accidental, unintended, or blameless acts. For example, if a person causes harm unintentionally and without negligence (say, during a sudden medical emergency while driving), they may not be held criminally liable due to the absence of mens rea.

However, this principle is not absolute. There are certain statutory offences, known as strict liability offences, where mens rea is not required. These are usually regulatory offences concerning public welfare, such as traffic violations or environmental laws, where ensuring compliance is more important than proving intent.

Indian courts have repeatedly upheld the importance of this maxim. In cases like State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has discussed the balance between traditional criminal liability and the need for strict liability in specific contexts.

Thus, “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” protects individuals from unjust criminal convictions by ensuring that both wrongful action and intent must be proven. It upholds the ethical and moral foundations of criminal justice, affirming that punishment should only follow from blameworthy conduct.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a fundamental principle in Indian constitutional law that holds that certain core features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by any amendment made by Parliament. This doctrine serves as a limitation on Parliament’s power under Article 368, which grants the power to amend the Constitution.

The doctrine was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). In this case, a 13-judge bench—the largest in Indian judicial history—ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution. These basic features were not exhaustively listed, but the court identified some key components such as:

Supremacy of the Constitution,

Rule of law,

Separation of powers,

Federalism,

Judicial review,

Free and fair elections,

Secularism,

Democracy, and

The dignity of the individual.

Since Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court has applied the Basic Structure Doctrine in several cases to strike down constitutional amendments that it found to be in violation of the essential features of the Constitution. For example, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to exempt the election of the Prime Minister from judicial review, stating that it violated the principle of free and fair elections and judicial review—both part of the basic structure.

Similarly, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment for attempting to give unlimited amending power to Parliament and curtailing judicial review. The court reaffirmed that a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the court held that even laws placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (which protects them from judicial review) can be tested against the basic structure if they violate fundamental rights.

In essence, the Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that India’s constitutional identity is preserved, even in the face of political or legislative majorities. It acts as a constitutional check on Parliament’s power and upholds the idea that the Constitution is a living document with enduring principles that cannot be overwritten by transient political interests.