LIJDLR

Volume III Issue IV

GUARDING LIBERTY OR CHOKING DISSENT? PREVENTIVE DETENTION AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN INDIA

Volume III Issue IV /

GUARDING LIBERTY OR CHOKING DISSENT? PREVENTIVE DETENTION AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN INDIA Maitra Varun Chotia, PhD Research Scholar, Central Sanskrit University, New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.210 The strain between civil liberties and state security in India has become more acute in the recent years, with the special preventive detention laws becoming more and more in conflict with the basic right to dissent. This paper looks into the way in which the preventive detention system in India, which is based on Article 22 of the Constitution and laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have been applied to dissenters and whether this application is consistent with constitutional protections and international standards. The paper uses a doctrinal and comparative approach and examines Indian constitutional clauses (Arts. 19, 21, 22), major Supreme Court judgments, and recent statistics on UAPA/NSA detentions. It also evaluates the opinions of other jurisdictions (e.g. the U.S.). First Amendment and UK Public Order/ anti-terrorism legislation) and other human rights tools. The results show, there is a trend: preventive detention has historically been insulated by the Indian courts against the normal due-process standards, despite the expansion of other rights (e.g. the due process of Maneka Gandhi). Recent scholarship records a dramatic increase in the number of dissent prosecutions – more than 10,000 UAPA arrests and 800+ cases of sedition in 2014-24 – frequently on flimsy evidence. According to critics, the preventative detention system of India allows up to six months of detention without trial (which can be renewed at court) on vague grounds of unlawful activities and is commonly used against activists and journalists. Comparative law reveals, e.g., that the law of free speech in the United States guarantees controversial advocacy except where the advocacy tends to imminent violence, and that the European human rights law demands that any detention must have a high necessity and proportionality. The paper concludes that preventive detention institution in India places unreasonable emphasis on a risk-averse security paradigm at the expense of dissent, and suggests reforms: improved statutory definitions, increased controls (judicial and legislative), regular review, and increased protection of Article 22 guarantees. This work places the discussion in the context of Indian and international systems, which makes it an addition to the current academic debate on the topic of national security versus the right to dissent in a constitutional democracy.

GUARDING LIBERTY OR CHOKING DISSENT? PREVENTIVE DETENTION AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN INDIA Read More »

BALANCING BARS AND BENEFITS: THE TWIN GOALS OF EXCLUSION AND EFFICIENCY UNDER SECTION 29A OF IBC 2016

Volume III Issue IV /

BALANCING BARS AND BENEFITS: THE TWIN GOALS OF EXCLUSION AND EFFICIENCY UNDER SECTION 29A OF IBC 2016 Dev Shroff, 5th year, Student at Gujarat National Law University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.209 The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was enacted as a transformative legal framework aimed at consolidating and streamlining India’s insolvency and bankruptcy laws. Its primary objectives include ensuring timely resolution of stressed assets, safeguarding the interests of creditors and other stakeholders, and fostering a culture of credit discipline and efficient corporate governance. Within this framework, Section 29A was introduced in 2017 as a disqualification clause designed to prevent promoters, erstwhile management, and other undesirable persons from regaining control of the corporate debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The intent was to protect the integrity of the process, ensure only bona fide resolution applicants participate, and thereby maintain creditor confidence in the system. Yet, while Section 29A represents an important gatekeeping mechanism, its practical operation has raised complex questions about its scope, proportionality, and consistency with the IBC’s objectives. Judicial scrutiny in landmark cases such as Swiss Ribbons and ArcelorMittal has upheld its constitutional validity and clarified some aspects of its application. However, these judgments have also revealed—and in some instances created—areas of continuing ambiguity regarding retrospective application, the scope of “related parties” and “control,” and the balance between exclusionary safeguards and market efficiency. These ambiguities have led to protracted litigation, inconsistent tribunal decisions, and potential deterrence of genuine bidders, which together risk undermining the Code’s foundational goals. This research is important because it moves beyond the settled question of constitutionality and interrogates the evolving jurisprudence and real-world impact of Section 29A in the post-Swiss Ribbons and post-ArcelorMittal period. By critically examining Indian case law over the last nine years, the study aims to generate insights that can guide policymakers, courts, and practitioners toward more coherent application of Section 29A. This work is novel in its exclusive focus on the post-judgment phase of Section 29A’s evolution and its emphasis on harmonising exclusionary intent with resolution efficiency, thereby contributing to a more predictable and effective insolvency framework in India.

BALANCING BARS AND BENEFITS: THE TWIN GOALS OF EXCLUSION AND EFFICIENCY UNDER SECTION 29A OF IBC 2016 Read More »

IS IT CHECK AND BALANCE OR CHECKS WITHOUT BALANCE: ANALYSING THE EROSION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PRACTICE

Volume III Issue IV /

IS IT CHECK AND BALANCE OR CHECKS WITHOUT BALANCE: ANALYSING THE EROSION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PRACTICE Shivendu Harihar, student of LL.M (Criminology) in Department of Law and Governance, Central University of South Bihar and has completed his LL. B (Hons.) from Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. Dr. Deo Narayan Singh, Assistant Professor in Department of Law and Governance, Central University of South Bihar (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.208 This Article focuses on the key aspects of the theory of separation of power. Separation of power in its actual sense has been differed from what we see in practicality. This article gives an overview of how the separation of powers came as a theory of checks and balance and now it has overturned as the checks without balance. The Author has tried to discuss the role of different organs of the government or different pillars of the Constitution in the Indian context in maintaining an equilibrium, but in today’s context where different pillars are trying to overpower the other pillars, it becomes formidable to justify whether the theory in book succeeded in its proper implementation or failed to gain its rightful dues in the practical world. The Article has tried to portray in its actual sense, why there is need of checks and balances and how it is getting eroded by excessive overreach of power.

IS IT CHECK AND BALANCE OR CHECKS WITHOUT BALANCE: ANALYSING THE EROSION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PRACTICE Read More »

ENCOUNTER DERIVED BY PUBLIC SENTIMENTS: WHETHER PART OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Volume III Issue IV /

ENCOUNTER DERIVED BY PUBLIC SENTIMENTS: WHETHER PART OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Sadhvi, LL.M student in Department of law and Governance, Central University of South Bihar (India). Dr. Deo Narayan Singh, Assistant Professor in Department of Law and Governance, Central University of South Bihar (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.207 The article talks about the complex relationship between the encounter or extra judicial killings by law enforcement agencies and relative public sentiments, exploring how encounter has been influenced by the popular opinion, being legitimatized and at times being challenged for its validity in the Indian Criminal Justice System. A troubling dynamic is being witnessed due to the convergence of public opinion, political expediency, and law enforcement culture where these extra judicial killings have been normalized in spite of clear constitutional violations and legal prohibitions. The author’s prime focus is to analyse the driving factors behind these fake encounters where public sentiments are involved and its reason for variations at regional level through out India. Our Criminal Justice System is the outcome of Adversarial justice System where every person has the right to produce evidence in his favour and to defend himself with all the fair opportunities, and encounter takes away all such opportunities so it must be in accordance with law.

ENCOUNTER DERIVED BY PUBLIC SENTIMENTS: WHETHER PART OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Read More »

DOWRY IN INDIA BEYOND THE BNS, LEGAL PROHIBITIONS, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE, AND THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN SUSTAINING A HISTORICAL EVIL

Volume III Issue IV /

DOWRY IN INDIA BEYOND THE BNS, LEGAL PROHIBITIONS, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE, AND THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN SUSTAINING A HISTORICAL EVIL Abha Mishra, Student, 3rd semester pursuing BALLB hons. at IILM University (India). Adv. Paras Yadav, Advocate at Civil Court RDC Ghaziabad (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.206 Despite all the legal reforms, criminalization, and reforms in social and economic conditions, dowry remains a deeply rooted and complex social issue in India. While the BNS has restructured criminal laws, the problem extends far beyond the legal framework. This paper investigates the history of dowry, the stress between social acceptance and legal prohibitions, and how dowry practices happen despite attempts to eliminate them. It discusses how patriarchal norms, weak enforcement, and underreporting of incidents limit the effectiveness of the Dowry Prohibition Act, BNS, and court decisions in preventing dowry-related violence. The paper talks about how traditional and digital media can change how people think, keep cultural norms, and sometimes make dowries look good through films, TV shows, music, and social media. While investigative journalism and campaigns to raise awareness about dowry crimes bring attention to these crimes, mainstream entertainment often promotes subtle acceptance of dowry. The study contends that the persistent issue of dowries pertains more to cultural and communicative factors than merely legal considerations. To combat real change, a multifaceted strategy is required that combines legislation, social reform, media accountability, and gender-sensitive education.

DOWRY IN INDIA BEYOND THE BNS, LEGAL PROHIBITIONS, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE, AND THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN SUSTAINING A HISTORICAL EVIL Read More »

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA

Volume III Issue IV /

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA Aadya Singh, 3rd year, B.A.LL. B (Hons.), Integrated Law Courses, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.205 The constitutional provision of President’s Rule under Article 356 empowers the president to assume control of a State in situations of constitutional breakdown. Historically this power has been one of the most misused instruments od the Indian Constitution, often deployed to dismiss state governments on political rather than constitutional grounds. The landmark judgment of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India sought to curb this misuse by making such proclamations subject to judicial review and thus limiting president’s discretion. This paper revisits the judgment of Bommai in light of the increasing centralization of political powers and examines whether the safeguards remain effective today. By analyzing the recent cases the paper evaluates whether federalism continues to function as a ‘basic feature’ of our constitution or has been eroded through central dominance. This study examines the constitutional scheme of emergency powers, historical misuse patterns, and the evolving role of judiciary in protecting federalism. It is also argued that while Bommai established a strong precedent, the subsequent political developments and the decline of coalition politics have diluted its practical efficacy. It concludes by recommending reforms, such as codifying clear standards for constitutional breakdown, ensuring Governor’s accountability, and mandating pre-decisional judicial oversight before invoking Article 356.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA Read More »

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 AND THE UMEED ACT, 1995 (WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025)

Volume III Issue IV /

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 AND THE UMEED ACT, 1995 (WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025) Diffia J P, Assistant Professor, Mugil College of Law, Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.204 Waqf institutions in India have historically served as socio-religious pillars that support education, health care, and welfare services within the Muslim community. However, persistent governance failures under the Waqf Act, 1995 including inaccurate property documentation, encroachment, political interference, and weak accountability mechanisms have significantly undermined the developmental potential of waqf properties. To address these deficiencies, the Government of India enacted the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, subsequently renamed the UMEED Act, 1995, presenting one of the most comprehensive governance transformations in the waqf sector. The amendment introduces structural reforms such as full-scale digitisation, enhanced enforcement measures, and inclusion of non-Muslim professionals in administrative bodies, while abolishing the legally contentious concept of “waqf by user.” This research article presents a comparative study between the Waqf Act, 1995 and the UMEED Act, 1995 by critically analysing legislative intent, administrative impact, constitutional implications, and community responses. Through a doctrinal and secondary data-based approach, the study reveals that while the amendment strengthens legal clarity and financial transparency, it also raises significant concerns related to religious autonomy, minority rights, and trust in State institutions evidenced by widespread protests and ongoing litigations challenging its constitutional validity. The article concludes that the UMEED Act has the potential to modernise and secure waqf assets for community welfare, but its success will ultimately depend on inclusive governance practices, effective stakeholder engagement, and judicial clarity from the Supreme Court. This comparative evaluation thus underscores the delicate balance required between State regulation and minority institutional autonomy, recommending that future reforms prioritise collaboration, transparency, and socio-religious sensitivity to achieve sustainable outcomes.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 AND THE UMEED ACT, 1995 (WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025) Read More »

RIGHT TO PRIVACY, A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: A CASE STUDY ON JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2017

Volume III Issue IV /

RIGHT TO PRIVACY, A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: A CASE STUDY ON JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2017 Fannana Mazumder, Student, LLM, 1st semester, IILM University, Greater Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.203 Right to privacy is a complicated concept that has evolved over time and was affected by various factors. It is a multifaceted aspect which differs from person to person that seems to be easy but difficult to define. Right to privacy, in layman’s words, can be defined as the impalpable as well as physical right of any person to live freely from others’ interference or intrusion. The idea of privacy is a vague one having an intricate value. Right to privacy can also be defined as one’s freedom of choice.  The Right to Privacy is a fundamental aspect of human liberty and dignity. In India, right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & anr. v. Union of India & ors., 2017. This case was a historic judgement that unanimously recognized Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. The historic judgement was delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in the year 2017. The case originally arose when Justice K. S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court via writ petition moved to Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhar Scheme on the grounds that it violated the citizens’ right to privacy. The primary issue in this case was that whether the right to privacy was an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and a part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court of India in its nine-judge bench unanimously delivered judgement, recognized right to privacy as a fundamental right and an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also held that right to privacy is also a part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Court overruled the earlier judgments in the cases of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964, where it was held, that right to privacy was not a fundamental right. This case emphasized that any infringement on the right to privacy must satisfy the conditions of legality, necessity and proportionality. The judgement also emphasized that privacy extends to all spheres of life including individual freedoms, data protection and sexual orientation. This historic judgement laid the groundwork in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 for decriminalization of homosexuality. This case was a game changer in the context of individual freedom in India marking the beginning of a historic legal battle. 

RIGHT TO PRIVACY, A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: A CASE STUDY ON JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2017 Read More »

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

Volume III Issue IV /

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS Vikrant Madhurjya, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Smriti Parashar, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Mizba Ahmed, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.202 In the theatre of climate change, the loudest cries often belong to humans, while faint echoes of non-human suffering fade unheard into the background. Climate change, though universal in nature, often remains selectively compassionate in its remedies. Each environmental catastrophe, from flood to drought, or wildfire to cyclone, leaves behind the traces of non-human invisible victims: animals are left behind to starve, die, migrate, or perish without a single legal remedy or recognition provided to them. The law remains deaf to all animals that flee from flames, drown in floods, and slowly yet gradually vanish from our ecosystem. Despite their sentience, feelings, and emotions, they remain non-living entities from the damage caused by disasters or climate change. Yet, when disaster strikes, the law counts bodies, not lives. The law tries to rebuild cities, not ecosystems. The current jurisprudence often fails to see and treat them as anything beyond just a resource, property, or mere ecological component. They often forget the fact that even animals share the same planet as ours and treat them as victims of rights or beings that are capable of suffering like us humans. This research paper seeks to explore the legal void in protecting animals during environmental catastrophes – a void born not just of mere ignorance but of moral negligence. Through this multifaceted lens combining law, morals, ethics, animal rights, and jurisprudence, this paper aims to interrogate: Can a law that excludes the voiceless ever claim to be just? What happens when the climate justice movement fails to see beyond the human species? And how can legal frameworks evolve to include non-human victims as well in the fight against climate change?

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS Read More »

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY OR DIGITAL CENSORSHIP? AN ANALYSIS OF KARNATAKA’S DRAFT FAKE NEWS LAW

Volume III Issue IV /

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY OR DIGITAL CENSORSHIP? AN ANALYSIS OF KARNATAKA’S DRAFT FAKE NEWS LAW Anushka Anand, B.A.LL. B (Hons), 9th Semester, Amity University Madhya Pradesh, India Yash Vardhan Singh, B.A.LL. B (Hons), 9th Semester, Amity University Madhya Pradesh, India Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.201 “Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democracy; it is the first condition of liberty.” — Justice Pralhad Balacharya Gajendragadkar, Former Chief Justice of India. The emergence of digital platforms has changed our relationship to communication, there is little to no distinction among the spaces of political propaganda, citizen expression, and journalism. The Karnataka Mis-Information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 is being proposed as a mechanism to combat the growing problem of false information on the internet as this transformation continues to develop. However, the Bill’s sweeping definitions, expansive powers, and absence of independent oversight raise considerable constitutional and ethical concerns. This paper evaluates the Bill from the perspective of Indian media law where, under Article 19(2), appropriate limits on speech and writing coexist with the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). According to the paper, this Bill decreases constitutional legitimacy in favor of censorship over regulation, pointing to important rulings, like Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. It appears that the Bill’s definition of “fake news” essentially gives the State the authority to determine what is “fake,” jeopardizing journalism’s Fourth Estate role and independence. More broadly, there are parallels with overseas media laws in Singapore (i.e., POFMA) and Germany (i.e., NetzDG) that demonstrate the precarious balance between restricting false information and denying opposing voices. Ultimately, the article advocates for a rights-based, open, and media-literate approach to disinformation as a problem of democratic accountability online.

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY OR DIGITAL CENSORSHIP? AN ANALYSIS OF KARNATAKA’S DRAFT FAKE NEWS LAW Read More »