LIJDLR

Volume III Issue IV

MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE PURSUIT OF TRANSPARENCY: ADR V. UNION OF INDIA

Volume III Issue IV /

MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE PURSUIT OF TRANSPARENCY: ADR V. UNION OF INDIA Mohan Sainanda Reddy Koduri, 5th semester, BA LL.B Student at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.149 The Supreme Court decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) marks a turning point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence around electoral transparency and the RTI. The case contested the constitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, which allowed corporate contributions to political parties without any limit but anonymously. The scheme was found unconstitutional by a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously because it infringed Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by robbing citizens of the necessary information on political funding. The Court once again confirmed that the freedom of speech and expression is inseparable from the right to know the origin of political funding, as it is essential to democratic involvement. It struck down amendments to the Representation of the People Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Companies Act that had legitimized electoral secrecy in sources and expenditures of electoral funds. It pointed out that corporate entities are not citizens and thus they cannot enjoy the same political rights, and that pure corporate power is a wrongful interpretation of democratic equality. Based on an analysis of proportionality, the Court overturned the government’s claim that the anonymity of a donor was a protection of free speech and stated that transparency was a constitutional requirement. The decision redefined electoral responsibility and furthered the principle of informational democracy by recovering political access to information on political donations and establishing and making them available through disclosure via the Election Commission. It highlights that the secret in political finance is contrary to constitutional government, and democracy can only flourish when citizens cast their vote fully knowing the financial forces behind the electoral processes.

MONEY IN POLITICS AND THE PURSUIT OF TRANSPARENCY: ADR V. UNION OF INDIA Read More »

THE DEATH PENALTY UNDER BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: JUSTICE, RETRIBUTION, OR AN OUTDATED PRACTICE?

Volume III Issue IV /

THE DEATH PENALTY UNDER BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: JUSTICE, RETRIBUTION, OR AN OUTDATED PRACTICE? Khushi Sharma, 3rd semester B.A.LL.B(H) Student Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.148 “Justice is not found in punishment alone, but in understanding the value of human life.” The death penalty remains one of the most debated aspects of India’s criminal jurisprudence. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the discussion has resurfaced over whether the death penalty aligns with modern constitutional morality. This paper explores the legal, moral, and philosophical dimensions of capital punishment in India under the BNS framework. Through an examination of historical evolution, constitutional principles, and landmark as well as recent judicial decisions, it assesses whether the death penalty today represents justice, retribution, or an outdated practice. The analysis maintains a neutral stance, emphasizing that the debate must reconcile justice with humanity in an evolving legal order. In continuation of this discourse, the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has renewed national attention on whether capital punishment remains an effective and ethically defensible component of India’s criminal justice system. The persistence of the death penalty under the BNS, despite global shifts toward abolition, highlights the tension between societal expectations of retribution and the constitutional commitment to human dignity, fairness, and proportionality. This paper therefore extends the discussion by examining not only the legal foundations of capital punishment under the BNS but also the broader ethical, social, and global considerations that shape its contemporary relevance. The expanded analysis aims to contribute to an informed and balanced understanding of whether the death penalty today serves the true purpose of justice or represents a vestige of an older penal philosophy.

THE DEATH PENALTY UNDER BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: JUSTICE, RETRIBUTION, OR AN OUTDATED PRACTICE? Read More »

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS

Volume III Issue IV /

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS Akansha Barua , LL.M. (Cyber Law), IILM University, Greater Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.147 The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is widely regarded as a turning point in India’s judicial and constitutional history. Delivered by a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court, this case addressed the scope of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The central issue was whether Parliament’s authority extended to altering the very foundation and identity of the Constitution. By a narrow margin of 7:6, the Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, which held that while Parliament has extensive amending powers, it cannot destroy or abrogate the essential features that form the Constitution’s identity. These include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. This doctrine preserved the sanctity of the Constitution and redefined the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary by establishing the latter as the ultimate guardian of constitutional principles. The judgment was particularly significant during the Emergency period (1975–77), when democratic values and fundamental rights were under threat. It prevented the concentration of absolute power in the hands of transient parliamentary majorities, thereby safeguarding India’s democratic framework. Thus, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment not only curtailed the risks of authoritarianism but also reaffirmed the Constitution as a living document that is flexible yet firmly anchored in its core principles. It remains the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence and the defining moment that shaped the future of judicial review and constitutionalism in India.

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS Read More »

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Volume III Issue IV /

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Shreya Saxena, LLM (IP), Amity University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.146 This paper critically examines the evolving landscape of judicial review in India, focusing on the multifaceted challenges and nascent opportunities presented by the technological advancements and socio-political dynamics of the 21st century. It specifically investigates how the integration of artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution mechanisms, while promising efficiency, concurrently introduces complex questions regarding due process, data privacy, and the fundamental right to access justice. Furthermore, the burgeoning caseload within the Indian judiciary necessitates innovative solutions, and AI-powered tools are emerging as potential aids for judges, particularly in research and preliminary judgment formulation. The Supreme Court of India’s e-Courts project, alongside initiatives like SUPACE and SUVAS, exemplifies a proactive embrace of technology to enhance judicial efficiency and address environmental sustainability concerns inherent in traditional paper-based systems. This digitalization effort is crucial given the over 4.32 crore cases pending across various courts, placing a significant burden on the judiciary to enhance its operational efficiency. The transition to digital platforms, accelerated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has been pivotal in managing this burden, facilitating virtual hearings and enabling faster redressal of matters. Beyond these immediate benefits, the strategic implementation of artificial intelligence in legal processes, such as the Supreme Court’s SUVAS system, has also demonstrated significant progress in translating complex legal documents into multiple regional languages, thereby improving accessibility and comprehension for a diverse populace. This technological integration also holds promise for streamlining judicial review itself, potentially aiding in case management, precedent analysis, and even the identification of systemic legal inconsistencies. This integration, however, necessitates a rigorous examination of its implications for the foundational principles of judicial review, including its potential to either reinforce or erode judicial independence and accountability. The present analysis critically assesses these developments through the dual theoretical lenses of “Law and Society” and “Legal Realism,” thereby providing a nuanced understanding of the interplay between legal norms, technological innovation, and societal impact.

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Read More »

THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU LAW: SACRAMENT OR CONTRACT?

Volume III Issue IV /

THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU LAW: SACRAMENT OR CONTRACT? Khushi Sharma, BA.LLB (HONS), 3rd semester Student Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.145 “Marriage is not a contract but a sacred union of two souls.” — Manusmriti. Marriage under Hindu law is one of the most significant social and religious institutions. Historically perceived as a sacred union (samskara), it fulfills religious, moral, and social duties. With the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and social modernization, contractual elements such as consent, legal capacity, and divorce were introduced. This paper examines Hindu marriage as a sacrament and a contract through scriptures, judicial interpretations, gender perspectives, and modern legal reforms. In addition to the traditional view, contemporary developments have reshaped the understanding of Hindu marriage into a more complex institution that harmonizes religious beliefs with modern legal requirements. The growing emphasis on individual autonomy, gender equality, and constitutional values has brought contractual principles to the forefront, challenging the age-old perception of marriage as an unbreakable sacrament. Judicial decisions have further clarified the dual character of Hindu marriage by recognizing both its ritualistic importance and its legal consequences. This paper therefore explores the historical journey of Hindu marriage from a purely spiritual and indissoluble bond to an institution increasingly influenced by statutory law and evolving social norms. It investigates how modern legislation, court judgments, and socio-cultural changes have introduced a hybrid model wherein sacred rituals coexist with legal rights, remedies, and obligations. The research aims to demonstrate that Hindu marriage today is best understood as a unique blend of tradition and modernity—simultaneously preserving its spiritual core while adapting to contemporary expectations of consent, equality, and legal protection.

THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU LAW: SACRAMENT OR CONTRACT? Read More »

ENSURING QUALITY EDUCATION THROUGH JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: A REVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE

Volume III Issue IV /

ENSURING QUALITY EDUCATION THROUGH JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: A REVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE Ms. Priyanka Singh , LL.M. Student, Department of Law, University of Kota, Kota, Rajasthan (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.144 This article examines the pivotal role of the judiciary in ensuring quality education in India, with a particular focus on judicial interventions that have reinforced the constitutional mandate of the Right to Education under Article 21-A. By reviewing landmark judgments, public interest litigations, and court directives, the article highlights how the judiciary has acted as a catalyst in holding the state accountable for educational standards, infrastructure, teacher availability, and equitable access. It further analyses the judiciary’s influence in interpreting and expanding the scope of educational rights, especially for marginalized communities. Through a critical evaluation of case law and policy impact, the article underscores the strengths and limitations of judicial activism in education governance and suggests pathways for a more balanced and collaborative approach among the judiciary, legislature, and executive to uphold the promise of quality education for all.

ENSURING QUALITY EDUCATION THROUGH JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: A REVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE Read More »

INSTITUTIONAL TUG-OF-WAR: WITH REFERENCE TO SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Volume III Issue IV /

INSTITUTIONAL TUG-OF-WAR: WITH REFERENCE TO SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIAN DEMOCRACY Juhi Singh, LLM (IP), Amity University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.143 Separation of powers is usually a well-known constitutional formula that is being acted out as a theatre of unceasing rivalry. There is no place where this is clearer than in India, where the three arms of State, Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary seldom act separately. Rather, they often encroach on the others territory, and we end up in a game of institutional tug of war. This tension is not by chance; it is a natural result of a constitutional structure which does not seek to separate its powers in strict line, but to provide a more practical overlap. This paper is going to contend that these institutional conflicts are not just instances of friction, but important pointers of the health and strength of Indian democracy. In most instances, judicial interventions tend to right executive overreach, legislative discussions seek to tame judicial overreach, and the executives take on a headbanging role at times of political need. The outcome is the existence of a dynamic equilibrium whereby there is co-existence of conflict and cooperation. This study provides a comparison of the development of the constitution in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe through the analysis of some of the most relevant cases, constitutional developments, and comparative views of the issue, demonstrating that stability of the Indian democracy is not in its institutional silence, but in its institutional struggle. The key issue that this paper is going to consider is whether this tug-of-war weakens governance by creating instability or its reinforcement of democracy by holding them accountable.

INSTITUTIONAL TUG-OF-WAR: WITH REFERENCE TO SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIAN DEMOCRACY Read More »

ADJOURNMENTS IN CIVIL SUITS: AN ANALYSIS OF LAW, PRACTICE, AND REFORM

Volume III Issue IV /

ADJOURNMENTS IN CIVIL SUITS: AN ANALYSIS OF LAW, PRACTICE, AND REFORM Priyal Mehta, 3rd year/5th sem Student at JIMS EMTC (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.142 Adjournments are among the most contentious aspects of civil litigation in India. Intended as a procedural safeguard to ensure fairness, they allow courts to grant parties time when circumstances prevent effective participation in proceedings. However, over time, adjournments have come to symbolize delay, inefficiency, and abuse of process. In India’s overburdened judiciary, where more than 5 crore cases remain pending, adjournments are frequently cited as a principal cause of delay in civil suits. They are designed to provide flexibility in proceedings and ensure fairness by granting parties adequate time to present their case. However, in practice, adjournments are often misused as a tactic to delay proceedings, harass the opposite party, or prolong litigation. This has resulted in enormous delays in civil justice delivery, contributing significantly to India’s judicial backlog. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order XVII, regulates adjournments and restricts them to three per party. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly stressed that adjournments must be exceptional. The problems associated with adjournments, such as delay, harassment of litigants, and erosion of judicial credibility, are balanced with the necessity of adjournments in genuine circumstances.  Yet, systemic weaknesses, professional practices, and judicial leniency undermine these safeguards. This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of adjournments in civil suits. It traces their legislative evolution, examines statutory provisions, reviews leading case law, and highlights problems caused by misuse. It situates adjournments within the constitutional framework of the right to speedy justice and the principle of fairness. A comparative perspective with jurisdictions like the UK, US, Singapore, Canada, and Australia demonstrates how strict case management reduces abuse. The paper also engages with Law Commission reports, empirical data on judicial delays, and practical challenges. It concludes with reform proposals including stricter enforcement of limits, realistic cost sanctions, case management hearings, and leveraging technology. The goal is to ensure adjournments remain tools of justice rather than weapons of delay.

ADJOURNMENTS IN CIVIL SUITS: AN ANALYSIS OF LAW, PRACTICE, AND REFORM Read More »

BALANCING FOREST DEPENDENCY AND MODERN DEVELOPMENT: EXAMINING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS IMPACT ON PVTG RIGHTS AND LIFESTYLE

Volume III Issue IV /

BALANCING FOREST DEPENDENCY AND MODERN DEVELOPMENT: EXAMINING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS IMPACT ON PVTG RIGHTS AND LIFESTYLE Sai Prarthana M, 4th Year Student, School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai (India) Srinithiya B, 4th Year Student, School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.141 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) of India have been the custodians of forest ecosystems and are dependent on natural resources for their cultural, spiritual and economic sustenance. However, the imposition of modern development projects and the prevalent restrictive legal framework has disrupted their traditional lifestyle. This research paper examines the intersection of forest dependency, the existing legal framework and modern developmental projects thus highlighting its impact and influence on the survival and cultural identity of PVTGs. Developmental projects, like the Great Nicobar Project, have often prioritised the industrial and urban growth over the needs of the indigenous population, drawing significant criticism from environmental activists. Additionally, laws like the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 have centralised the control of forest to the government, often criminalising traditional practices. While Forest Rights Act, 2006 was enacted to address these historical injustices, its implementation is riddled with inconsistencies and delays. This study employs doctrinal methodology relying upon secondary resources to analyse the effects of modernisation and forest laws on PVTGs. It also takes into account the case studies to substantiate how these developments disrupt their livelihood. International perspectives are incorporated to identify the best practices for safeguarding the indigenous rights. The findings of this research reveal the influence of modern developmental projects in changing the forest dependency attitude of the PVTGs. Further exploration of the legal framework aiming to protect tribal right reveals significant challenges and backlashes in its practical implementation. This study contributes to the field of tribal rights and sustainable development recommending inclusive policy reforms which ensure the protection of rights and traditions in development. By addressing these issues, the research underscores a balanced approach, thus aligning economic development with legal framework and preservation of tribal heritage.

BALANCING FOREST DEPENDENCY AND MODERN DEVELOPMENT: EXAMINING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS IMPACT ON PVTG RIGHTS AND LIFESTYLE Read More »

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS

Volume III Issue IV /

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS Tadgh Quill-Manley, Law, Yr 2, Semester 1 student at King’s Inns, ‘Glenwood,’ Cork, Ireland Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.140 This article conducts a doctrinal analysis of the legality of continued State funding for horse and greyhound racing in Ireland, assessing its compatibility with domestic and EU animal welfare obligations and Irish administrative law principles. Established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001, the annual Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund allocates over €90 million to support these culturally and economically significant industries, yet intensifying public scrutiny – fuelled by media investigations, NGO reports, and parliamentary debates – highlights welfare deficiencies, including traceability gaps, inconsistent injury reporting, and inadequate rehoming practices. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the article examines primary sources: statutes like the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 and Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011; EU Regulations on transport, slaughter, and controls (e.g., (EC) No 1/2005 and (EU) 2017/625); and case law such as O’Connell v The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57 and Connolly v Bord na gCon [2020] IECA 122, which affirm regulators’ public-law duties. It integrates parliamentary materials and comparative insights from UK and New South Wales reforms. Findings reveal that funding remains lawful if conditioned on welfare compliance, but unconditional allocations risk judicial review for irrationality, failure to consider relevant welfare evidence, or disproportionality. Hypotheses posit substantive limits from welfare duties, vulnerability to challenge without evidence engagement, and the need for performance-based models. The article concludes that ministerial discretion must prioritise demonstrable welfare outcomes, transparency, and accountability. Recommendations advocate statutory amendments for conditional funding, independent audits, and enhanced reporting to reconcile legal obligations with industry interests, ensuring long-term defensibility.

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS Read More »