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.
#India Rsquo#China Fdi#Fdi Dilemma
0 citations1 downloads14 min readPDF Available (22 pages)
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).
#Forced Marriage#Human Rights#Forced Marriages
0 citations2 downloads15 min readPDF Available (28 pages)
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.
#Culture Pressures#Gossip#Lgbtq
0 citations0 downloads14 min readPDF Available (10 pages)
Violence against women is one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the modern world, cutting across cultural, economic and political boundaries. It is rooted in patriarchy and systemic gender inequality, manifesting in forms such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, dowry deaths, honor killings, trafficking, and cyber violence. Internationally, violence against women has been recognized as a human rights violation through instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979), and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1993). These frameworks emphasize state responsibility to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of gender-based violence.
In India, the constitutional mandate of equality (Articles 14, 15) and dignity (Article 21) forms the basis of legal protection for women. Legislations such as the Indian Penal Code, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, provide comprehensive remedies. Judicial pronouncements, notably Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997), Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), and the Nirbhaya case (2017), have strengthened the legal discourse by treating violence as a constitutional and human rights violation rather than merely a private wrong.
However, enforcement challenges persist. Social stigma, patriarchal mindsets, institutional apathy, and judicial delays hinder access to justice. While the legal framework is strong, its effectiveness is undermined by inadequate implementation and lack of gender sensitization. Globally, best practices such as the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (1994), Europe’s Istanbul Convention (2011), and Africa’s Maputo Protocol (2003) demonstrate effective policy models that India can adapt.
This research argues that addressing violence against women requires a multi-pronged approach: stronger legal enforcement, institutional accountability, gender-sensitive education, technological tools, and deep-rooted social reforms. Violence against women is not merely a women’s issue but a fundamental human rights challenge. Eliminating it is essential to realizing equality, justice, and democratic ideals.
#Human Rights#Women#Violence
0 citations0 downloads15 min readPDF Available (23 pages)
The true crime theme has become a dominant digital genre, with its increasing popularity on platforms like Netflix, YouTube and Spotify, completely transforming the perception of crime, justice and gender in society. Even though the platforms claim to be spreading awareness amongst viewers about gender based violence, they present patriarchal stereotypes when women are portrayed as “deviant perpetrators” or “ideal victims”. It reinforces the gender roles rather than dismantling them (Cavender & Bond-Maupin, 1993). Meanwhile, the women from marginalised communities are vastly underrepresented, especially the Dalit, Black and migrant women. The digital erasure mirrors deeply rooted social inequalities (Slakoff & Duran, 2023).
The crime media often engage in activities that violate the right to privacy, the right to dignity and the right to fair trial. When the sensationalised content streams across platforms, the victims and their families get re-traumatised. This highlights the clash between the freedom of speech and expression and the rights of an individual (Rodríguez & Lopez-Figueroa, 2022). Additionally, the feminist legal scholars opine that the true crime leads to the commodification of women’s sufferings, transforming the trauma into consumable content for the viewers (Cassandra, 2023). Such portrayals lead to legal and ethical contestations.
This paper aims to critically examine the intersection of law, justice, sex and digital media by analysing how true crime shapes the image and perception of women, causing systematic biases. It draws on privacy laws, feminist jurisprudence and case studies across the globe, showing the implications of digital portrayal of women involved in crimes. This paper also argues for regulatory reforms and demands stronger privacy, protection and accountability mechanisms to ensure that true crime media does not cross the boundaries and alliance with feminist legal principles. The ultimate aim of this study is to contend that without the reforms, digital crime will become a form of “trial-by-streaming” where women’s dignity will be crucified for the sake of entertainment.
#True Crime#Crime Media#Media Portrayals
0 citations0 downloads15 min readPDF Available (20 pages)
Over the past several decades, International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) has steadily won for itself the position of foremost dispute-resolution mechanism amongst parties engaged in cross-border commercial dealings. Its ascendancy owes itself to three foundational virtues: impartiality in proceedings, suppleness of procedure, and the trustworthiness of enforcement across national frontiers. This article undertakes a searching examination of ICA's theoretical foundations, the institutional ecosystem that sustains it, and its procedural architecture. Central to this analysis is a critical appraisal of the relationship binding sovereign legal systems to the international arbitral order, shaped in no small measure by the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. The article further interrogates a range of structural difficulties that continue to beset the field: misgivings over arbitrator partiality, escalating costs, delay in enforcement, and the questions of legitimacy that dog investor-state dispute mechanisms. Viewing these concerns through the lens of reform, this paper advances a series of proposals, ranging from institutional coordination and digital transformation to the embedding of environmental and human-rights obligations within commercial arbitration frameworks. Ultimately, the paper contends that ICA stands not merely as a legal instrument but as an integral pillar of global economic governance and diplomatic statecraft in the present age.
Welfare Schemes constitute an important Instrument through which the State seeks to translate Constitutional commitments to Social Justice, Equality and Human Dignity into practical benefits for Citizens. Tamil Nadu has historically developed an extensive network of Welfare Programmes covering Food Security, Education, Healthcare, Social Security, Women and Child Welfare, Housing, Livelihood Support, Pensions and assistance to Vulnerable Groups. These Schemes raise important Constitutional and Legal questions concerning the Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights, Legislative Competence, Equality, Administrative Discretion, Public Finance, Accountability and Judicial Review. This Article examines the Constitutional Foundation and Legal Dimensions of Welfare Schemes implemented by the State of Tamil Nadu.
It analyses Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21-A, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47 and 282 of the Constitution, together with the Federal Distribution of Legislative and Executive Powers. It further examines the Transformation of several Welfare objectives from non-justiciable Directive Principles into enforceable Rights through Legislation and Judicial Interpretation. Landmark decisions such as Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu are considered. The article argues that Welfare Schemes are Constitutionally Legitimate when designed to advance Social Justice, but their implementation must satisfy the requirements of Equality, Transparency, Legality, Financial Responsibility and Administrative Fairness.
#Welfare Schemes#Tamil Nadu#Legal Dimensions
0 citations1 downloads14 min readPDF Available (13 pages)
Retail participation in India’s equity futures and options (F&O) market has grown sharply, helped by digital platforms, easier broker access and lower costs. The growth has brought heavy losses. SEBI’s January 2023 analysis found that 89 per cent of individual F&O traders lost money in 2021-22, and a later study covering 2021-22 to 2023-24 found that 93 per cent lost money over three years, with aggregate losses above ₹1.8 lakh crore.
In response, SEBI changed contract sizes, expiry-day products, option premium collection, margins and position limits during 2024-25. None of these prohibits retail trading, but several raise the cost of entry. The central legal question is whether measures framed as investor protection can curtail access to an otherwise lawful market. SEBI’s authority comes from Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Section 11(4)(b) allows it to restrain specific persons from the market. The 2024-25 measures, however, apply to retail investors as a class, not to identified wrongdoers.
The study asks not whether retail F&O trading is desirable, but whether SEBI’s approach lies within its statutory powers and balances protection with access. Article 19(1)(g), which protects the freedom to carry on a trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), adds a constitutional side.
#Sebi Act#Retail Participation#Sebi Rsquo
0 citations1 downloads14 min readPDF Available (9 pages)
Digital platforms have changed how work is organised in India. Ride-hailing, food delivery and home services give millions of people an income, yet most of these workers are called “partners”, not employees. Software assigns their tasks, sets incentives, tracks performance and can cut off their access to work, often without explanation.
This paper examines algorithmic deactivation: the suspension, blocking or termination of a worker’s access to a platform through automated or partly automated systems. It argues that deactivation is not only a contractual matter. Where platform work is a main source of income, unexplained or arbitrary deactivation raises real questions of fairness, equality, privacy and access to justice. The paper reviews the Code on Social Security, 2020, Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Rajasthan and Karnataka laws, and the ILO and EU approaches. It finds that India now recognises gig workers but does not yet regulate algorithmic management itself. It proposes a rights-based framework built on notice, reasons, human review, appeal, interim protection and independent oversight, while leaving platforms free to act against genuine misconduct.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and related public air-quality expenditure in Rajasthan through a comparative empirical assessment of five cities—Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Udaipur and Alwar. Using secondary data from government and programme sources, the study examines annual PM10 concentrations against the 2019–20 baseline and compares these outcomes with reported public air-quality fund utilisation. The results reveal substantial inter-city variation. Between 2019–20 and 2025–26, Jodhpur recorded the largest decline in PM10 (31.1%), followed by Udaipur (22.1%) and Alwar (17.5%), while Jaipur and Kota recorded increases of approximately 14.5% and 13.7%, respectively. The five-city average declined by approximately 11.0%. The financial data show that approximately ₹812.91 crore was released across the five-city sample and ₹604.47 crore was utilised, representing 74.36% utilisation. The comparison does not establish a simple relationship between expenditure and pollution reduction: Jaipur had the highest utilisation rate but experienced deterioration, whereas Jodhpur achieved the strongest improvement with a lower utilisation rate. The study therefore argues that financial absorption should be treated as an input indicator rather than an effectiveness indicator. Drawing on the wider NCAP literature, the paper further shows the importance of source-specific intervention, monitoring quality, meteorological conditions, institutional coordination and enforcement. It proposes an outcome-oriented governance framework for Rajasthan in which expenditure is linked to verified pollution reduction, population exposure, implementation quality and credible climate co-benefits.
#Clean Air#National Clean#Air Programme
0 citations4 downloads14 min readPDF Available (19 pages)
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a structural weakness in the relationship between pharmaceutical patent protection, manufacturing capacity and the right to health. India and South Africa’s 2020 proposal to suspend selected obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) challenged a system in which vaccine innovation was globally valuable but production remained geographically concentrated. The debate cannot be reduced to a choice between patents and public health. Patents may support investment and rapid innovation, yet exclusive rights, trade secrets, supply contracts and national procurement policies can together restrict timely access to life-saving technologies. The mRNA experience adds a further complication: a patent waiver may remove liability for infringement without transferring the tacit know-how, process controls, regulatory data and skilled personnel required to reproduce a vaccine at scale. This article argues that India’s future-pandemic framework should retain patent incentives while converting public-health safeguards from dormant exceptions into operational access architecture. The proposed framework combines a pandemic-triggered compulsory-licensing pathway, government-use powers, transparency obligations, public-funding conditions, disclosure of relevant patent and know-how information, advance manufacturing agreements, and sustained investment in regional technology-transfer and fill-and-finish capacity. India should use its constitutional commitment to social welfare and its experience as a supplier of affordable medicines to advocate a treaty-compatible system in which access; technology transfer and innovation are designed together rather than sequenced after a crisis.
Partnership is founded on the premise that each partner is an agent of his partners and of the firm. But, in many cases, the inner conditions of that agency remain unknown to outsiders. This raises a fundamental problem what if one partner does something unauthorized, the agency of which was restricted, but the bona fide third party was unable to know this?
Ostensible authority, now embedded in Sections 18 to 20 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, overcomes this tension by making the firm liable for those actions of a partner that appear to fall within his authority, and, if not for those inner restrictions, would otherwise bind the firm. The law treats a partner, vis-a-vis innocent outsiders, as an agent of the firm with as much authority as the firm’s business requires.
This paper critically analyzes the statutory framework governing ostensible authority, with particular attention to how the phrase “usual course of business” has been interpreted by the Indian judiciary, and to the scope of the notice requirement under Section 20 in relation to the firm’s exposure to liability. It uses relevant Indian case law, contemporary English judicial experience, comparative material from English Law and available academic work, to evaluate whether the Indian framework provides a fair balance between securing innocent, yet unsuspecting, third parties and protecting innocent, inactive partners from disproportionate liability. It argues that while ostensible authority provides a robust safety net, a more formalized scheme for registration of some restrictive authorities could result in a better equilibrium.
This paper examines the evolving role of mass and digital media in shaping public and legal perceptions of same-sex relationships and marriage in India. Drawing an initial comparative parallel with political and media shifts in the United States, the study categorizes modern Indian media into legacy television broadcasting, digital influencers, and grassroots social media journalists. It traces the historical progression of Indian cinema and broadcasting from post-independence silence, Victorian legal moralism, and effeminate, villainized stereotypes (between 1950 and 2010) to the post-Naz Foundation emergence of more sensitive, progressive storytelling. However, the paper argues that contemporary Indian media perpetuates a counterintuitive dilemma: by framing LGBTQIA+ characters solely through their sexual orientation and coming-out trauma rather than integrating them into broad, everyday narratives, media institutions pigeonhole queer identity as an all-consuming feature rather than a normative aspect of life. This reductionist lens—mirrored across television debates and regional social media content—continues to sever queer civil liberties from universal human rights, inadvertently hindering genuine societal consensus toward same-sex marriage legalization.
#Sex Marriage#Shaping Views#Media
0 citations0 downloads14 min readPDF Available (9 pages)
Transgender are also the creation of the God like the Binary. They are the part of the society and have equal rights. The presence of transgender of late is increased and call for protection. The existing literature shows that transgenders are facing numerous problems in the society such as sexual harassment, lack of medication, employment opportunities, false arrest and physical and verbal violence. Although the existing policies and legislation such as Article.14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 19, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 provides for the equal opportunities and restricts discrimination, Yet inclusiveness is lacking. The object of writing this paper is to analyze the protection of Transgender Act and to identify the challenges faced therein towards the Inclusive. This paper is divided into two parts firstly, analysis of the Act. The second part focuses on the Inclusiveness of Transgenders i.e, the Identification of the challenges faced by the Transgender community such as Racism, abused and ridiculed in public places, parents kick them out of the house, social exclusion, human trafficking, disrespect, rejection of entry. This paper concludes by offering suggestions and call for the need for inclusive of transgenders and how it leads to social justice.
#Social Justice#Inclusive Growth#Challenges Faced
0 citations1 downloads14 min readPDF Available (6 pages)
The Bar Council of India in August this year had directed all State Bar Councils across the country to not enrol the 2026 batch graduates of NALSAR University of Law. This incident involved a protest campaign by the students against the Chief Justice of India who was to be the chief guest for their convocation. The communication was amended and withdrawn within hours, but the petitioners who had taken the case to the Supreme Court claimed that this withdrawal was not sufficient to provide an answer to the question that the episode had raised.
On 3 September 2026, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana agreed. The Court held that the Advocates Act, 1961 confers no power, express or implied, on the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils to take disciplinary action against a law student; that such power arises only once a graduate is enrolled as an advocate; and that disciplinary authority over students rests with the institution in which they are enrolled. The communications of 13 August were declared to be without authority of law.
One sentence in that order deserves more attention than it has received. The Bar Council of India, the Court said, may prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with the statutory provisions — it cannot take disciplinary action against a law student. The Court thereby drew a line that the Advocates Act itself has never drawn clearly: between regulating an educational system and governing the people inside it.
The stakes of that clarification are heightened by NALSAR's own standing within Indian legal education: the university has consistently ranked third nationally in the Law category of the National Institutional Ranking Framework, behind only NLSIU Bangalore and NLU Delhi. A regulatory overreach visited upon one of the country's most highly regarded law schools was, in that sense, a signal to the entire sector about how thin the line between academic governance and professional discipline had become. [1]
The episode is worth remembering, but it is not the argument. The argument is what the episode exposed — that India has, twice over in the past year, declined to think seriously about who should regulate legal education, and that the subject has fallen into the gap between two pieces of legislation.
[1] Pritha Roy Choudhury, 'NIRF Ranking 2025 Law: NLSIU Bangalore Still the Best; NLU Delhi, NALSAR Hyderabad Retain 2nd, 3rd Spots' ( Careers360 , 4 September 2025) <https://news.careers360.com/nirf-ranking-2025-law-nlsiu-bangalore-top-college-nlu-delhi-nalsar-hyderabad-wbnujs-kolkata-gnlu-gandhinagar-symbiosis-pune-nba> accessed 27 September 2026.
#Legal Education#Bar Council#Nlsiu Bangalore
0 citations0 downloads15 min readPDF Available (7 pages)
The interface Between intellectual property right and public health has emerged as one of the most contested terrains of contemporary IPR Jurisprudence. We often think of trademark law as something that protects consumers from confusion. And in medicines, that protection becomes even more critical because a mistake can cost a life. But the same law, when it is stretched beyond its purpose through border enforcement and anti-counterfeiting rules, can actually block access to life-saving drugs.
This paper started from a very simple question - what happens when a generic medicine, which is legal, licensed and has its own distinct brand name, is stopped at a port because it looks similar to a big pharma brand? In 2008-09, Dutch customs did exactly that. They seized 19 consignments of Indian generics which were not even meant for Europe, they were going to Brazil, Nigeria and Peru under the UNITAID programme.
India today is called the Pharmacy of the World for a reason. We supply about 20% of global generic exports and almost 62% of anti-retroviral drugs used in Africa. So when you stop an Indian generic, you are not just stopping a trademark issue, you are stopping a patient's treatment.
Through this research, I have tried to show that the real problem is conflation - we are mixing three different things under one word "counterfeit". Spurious drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a quality issue, counterfeit trademark goods under the Trade Marks Act is an IPR issue, and generic drugs are a completely legitimate category. WHO itself understood this confusion and in 2017 dropped the term counterfeit and adopted Substandard and Falsified. India still has not.
This paper analyses TRIPS Footnote 14, the EU Regulations, ACTA, WTO dispute DS408, Indian case law like Cadila and Novartis, and comparative law from USA, EU, Brazil and South Africa, to argue that our current customs rules are TRIPS-plus and violate Articles 7, 8, 41 of TRIPS and GATT Article V. I have proposed a concrete model clause - a public health defence under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act.
#Public Health#Trademark Infringement#Infringement Versus
0 citations1 downloads15 min readPDF Available (15 pages)
Indian administrative law recognises audi alteram partem as an important component of the constitutional guarantee of fairness under Articles 14 and 21. The principle is based on the expectation that an affected person should be able to understand and respond to the material on which a decision is made. The increasing use of artificial intelligence in administrative decision-making raises concerns about this assumption, particularly where the working of an algorithm is not readily accessible. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative approach, this article examines three forms of AI involvement in decision-making and considers the Bombay High Court’s decision in KMG Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (2025 ) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. (2026) , alongside selected developments from the EU, Netherlands and United States. The article argues that the key concern is whether affected persons can meaningfully challenge decisions when relevant inputs and reasoning remain inaccessible. It proposes a limited shift in the burden of establishing prejudice where algorithmic opacity prevents such prejudice from being fairly assessed.
#Artificial Intelligence#Audi Alteram#Alteram Partem
0 citations0 downloads14 min readPDF Available (8 pages)