Marriage is social institution in which man and woman forms a pious relationship and strong bonds through the rituals of Saptapadi, Nikah etc. In India there is vibrant culture and religions practices followed according to their old customs and traditions. There is a free contract between the parties to preserve the sanctity of their relationship, but when there is no free will and consent to agree upon forming such relationship and marry another individual the concept of forced marriage comes into existence. This constitutes human rights violation [1] and what remedies can prevent them to avoid forced marriage, what are the consequences faced by the victims. This offence should be criminalized as a separate and distinct offence against humanity [2] and has become issue in national as well as international spheres. This paper will analyse that pre - existing legal framework, studies and acts have laws that prosecute this crime or this became a new emerging issue arising out of gender-based violence and patriarchy. This paper will examine the previous failures of creating consolidated act to prevent victims of forced marriages, whether the families pressure put them into this situation or it is a cultural practice or this concept has its earlier established roots in the world. This paper will include the problem and its solutions, recommendations and need of criminalizing the issue of forced marriages. Although criminalization [3] is welcomed symbolically since it makes a clear statement that forced marriages are undesirable, preventative measures are noticeably lacking.
[1] CEDAW 29th session 30 June to 25 July 2003, United Nations , https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm (last visited Oct 11, 2026).
[2] Prevention of interference with the freedom of matrimonial alliances (in the name of Honour and tradition): A suggested legal framework., Report No. 242, (last visited Oct 11, 2026)
[3] The Sierra Leone web, Sierra Leone Web - SCSL - Taylor Appeals Chamber Decisions, https://www.sierra leone.org/Taylor_Appeals_Chamber_Decisions.html (last visited Oct 11, 2026).
Background and significance of technology in criminal justice
In the modern era, the use of technology in the criminal justice system has been widely recognized across the world. This is due to its ability to assist in achieving efficiency, transparency, and greater accuracy in delivering justice. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) have played an important role in enabling this objective by incorporating technology as a tool of proof of truth.
Relationship between technology and finding truth
Over time, the application of technology has aided significantly in discovering the truth in various areas of life. Its importance includes recording audio-visually any statement of a witness, taking depositions through video conferencing, and admitting electronic records as documentary evidence. These provisions have been incorporated in the BNSS and BSA to enable faster delivery of justice as well as to ensure that all parties to a case – the witnesses, victims, and the accused, are treated fairly. [1]
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 2(1)(a) (India).
In the evolving landscape of global security as of 2025, terrorism persists as a transnational scourge, demanding fortified international cooperation amid rising incidents documented in the Global Terrorism Index 2024, which highlights a 22% uptick in South Asian attacks. This critical research article examines the indispensable role of multilateralism in counter-terrorism, centering on the nexus of sedition laws and national security, with a dual lens on India's transformative legal reforms and their resonance in the international arena. India's enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 , effective from July 2024, exemplifies this shift: abolishing colonial-era sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and substituting it with Section 152, which penalizes acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity , is now explicitly linked to terrorism under a broadened Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) framework. While ostensibly enhancing precision against subversive threats, these provisions have sparked diplomatic tensions, as evidenced by Amnesty International's 2024 critiques of over 500 UAPA detentions blurring dissent with terror incitement, mirroring global concerns over free speech erosion.
Comparatively, India's approach intersects with international paradigms: the U.S. PATRIOT Act's surveillance expansions post-9/11 parallel UAPA's preemptive arrests , yet foster alliance strains in forums like the Quad ; the EU's 2025 Counter-Terrorism Directive updates emphasize judicial safeguards absent in India's expedited trials, complicating extradition pacts. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and empirical insights from the Global Terrorism Database (1970–2024) , the study uncovers a 32% correlation in India between stringent anti-sedition enforcement and escalated radicalization in border regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where 2025 cross-border incursions underscore unilateralism's pitfalls. Recent bilateral engagements— the 21st India-U.S. Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism (December 2025) and the 15th EU-India Dialogue (September 2025) , reveal cooperative gains in intelligence-sharing via the Five Eyes adjuncts and GCTF initiatives , yet expose frictions when sedition-like charges hinder joint deradicalization in multi-ethnic contexts.
Employing a socio-legal and diplomatic prism, this article critiques how misapplied sedition successors alienate vulnerable populations, undermining the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy's 2025 review pillars: addressing root causes, upholding human rights, and ensuring rule-of-law compliance . In India's federal mosaic, where UAPA's 2024 amendments empowered state-level designations of " terrorists ", such tools risk diplomatic isolation, as seen in stalled SAARC counter-terror protocols amid Pakistan-India distrust.
To bridge these chasms, the research advocates a recalibrated global architecture: an India-endorsed UN Sedition Harmonization Protocol, integrating BNS-inspired definitions with graduated, rights-compliant sanctions and cross-jurisdictional oversight. This would amplify soft diplomacy through G20-led capacity-building in fragile states, preempting cyber-sedition and lone-actor threats. By harmonizing India's security imperatives with international norms, which evident in the 2025 India-Indonesia CT Working Group, the protocol could reduce enforcement disparities, bolstering resilience.
In sum, international cooperation emerges as the linchpin for India's counter-terrorism efficacy, tempering national security zeal with pluralistic diplomacy. As 2025's dialogues affirm, collaborative governance of sedition analogs not only mitigates threats but fortifies the democratic fabric, paving a pathway for equitable global solidarity against terror's specter.
Since April 2020, India’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) regime has required prior government approval for investments from countries sharing a land border with India, particularly China, under Press Note 3 of 2020 (PN3), issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and incorporated into the Consolidated FDI Policy. This paper examines the legal framework and evolution of India-China investment relations while analysing PN3 against India’s international and constitutional obligations. It evaluates potential tensions with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the most-favoured-nation principle, and constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness. A comparative analysis of the U.S. CFIUS, EU FDI Screening Regulation, and Australia’s foreign investment review framework assesses whether India’s country-based approach is proportionate and legally defensible. The paper also examines the termination of the India-China Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, adoption of the 2016 Model BIT, and related measures affecting Chinese businesses, including app restrictions and PLI exclusions. The March 2026 relaxation of PN3, introducing a ten-percent non-controlling beneficial-ownership exemption and time-bound clearances for selected manufacturing sectors, represents a significant recalibration. The paper concludes that India should adopt a transaction-based, transparent, proportionate, and time-bound screening mechanism with sunset provisions to balance national security with its objective of attracting sustainable FDI.
The comparative constitutional literature on end-of-life rights has long been organised around a single doctrinal contrast: Washington v. Glucksberg, [1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States declined to read a right to physician-assisted suicide into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [2] in which the Supreme Court of India held that the right to die with dignity is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. This paper moves past that contrast. Its concern is not whether a court should recognise a right to die, but what follows institutionally once it has recognised or refused to recognise one. The Indian path produced judicially designed administrative machinery that the Court itself modified in 2023 and applied for the first time in March 2026 in Harish Rana v. Union of India. [3] The American path produced a patchwork of state statutes whose coverage remains geographically fragmented nearly three decades after Glucksberg. Comparing these two institutional after-effects, the paper argues that neither judicial recognition nor judicial refusal, standing alone, resolves the execution-stage problem of rights-creation, and it proposes a sunset-limited, dialogic remedial model as a middle path.
[1] Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 (1997).
[2] Common Cause (A Regd. Soc’y) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 (India).
[3] Harish Rana v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 222 (India).
Legal orthodoxy insists that judicial decisions emerge from an austere, sterile sanctuary insulated from public noise. Yet the contentious history of LGBTQ+ litigation exposes a persistent, messy dialogue between the judge's bench and the street. This article unpacks how cultural friction—what we might call ambient societal 'gossip,' majoritarian anxieties, traditionalist dogmas, and media spectacles—quietly steers the course of constitutional jurisprudence. Using India's legal trajectory as a primary lens, from the liberation of Navtej Singh Johar to the judicial caution displayed in the Supriyo marriage equality ruling, and drawing parallels with courtrooms in the United States, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, this paper investigates the fragile boundary between constitutional morality and majoritarian sentiment. It asks how judges manage counter-majoritarian dilemmas when legal rights collide with sacred social structures, mapping why courts often champion individual liberties behind closed doors only to retreat into institutional deference at the threshold of civil recognition. In doing so, this study argues that real equality cannot rely on legal mechanics alone while ignoring the cultural prejudices that quietly shape how the law is interpreted.
Ask in natural language — hybrid semantic and full-text search surfaces related papers by topic, author, and legal research area.
Semantic search
Find conceptually related papers even when exact keywords do not match.
Hybrid ranking
Combines full-text and vector similarity for more relevant results.
Filter by topic
Narrow results by category, year, volume, and issue.
DOI-backed links
Persistent Crossref identifiers for every published article.
Journal Metrics
Impact at a glance
Publication statistics from our materialized journal metrics, refreshed on a regular cadence.
0
Published papers
0
Researchers
0
Downloads
0
Citations
Submission Workflow
From manuscript to publication
A transparent five-step process designed for authors, reviewers, and editorial teams.
01
Prepare Manuscript
Format your paper per JMDLR guidelines with abstract, keywords, and references.
02
Submit Paper
Upload your manuscript through our submission portal with author metadata.
03
Editorial Review
Editorial board screens for scope, originality, and scholarly rigor.
04
Peer Review
Double-blind peer review by domain experts with constructive feedback.
05
Publication
Accepted papers receive DOI assignment, indexing, and open-access release.
Benefits
Built for scholarly impact
Every published article ships with the metadata, identifiers, and discovery tools researchers expect.
Google Scholar metadata
Article pages expose full citation_* tags for academic discovery and indexing.
DOI-backed articles
Published articles carry persistent DOIs with Crossref-compatible bibliographic metadata.
ORCID on articles
Author profiles display ORCID iDs and affiliations on every published paper.
Repository exports
OAI-PMH, RSS, and Dublin Core metadata for harvesters and research databases.
Semantic search
Hybrid vector and full-text search across titles, abstracts, keywords, and authors.
Citation Ready
One-click APA, MLA, and BibTeX export for every published paper.
FAQ
Common questions
Everything you need to know about publishing, indexing, and discovering research on JMDLR.
JMDLR is the Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Legal Research, a peer-reviewed open-access law journal (E-ISSN 2582-9947) published by Nitisara Publication Company.
Research made easier to discover, read and cite.
Explore peer-reviewed legal scholarship with DOI-backed citations, AI-powered discovery, and a reading experience built for researchers.