Volume IV Issue I

AI-GENERATED WORKS AND COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS Kushangi Sameliya, IP Associate at D.S. Associates (DSA) (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.29 The fast development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can generate text, images, music and other creative works has posed a large challenge to the traditional copyright law, which has always been based on the human authorship and intellectuality. This study analyzes the legal context of ownership rights, as applied to AI-generated creations, in India, European Union, and China on the basis of a comparative study. The research will attempt to assess the relevance of the present copyright principles concerning the AI-based creation and determine the regulatory practice that can potentially reconcile both technological innovation and the safeguarding of the rights of creators. The study follows a doctrinal and comparative research approach, in which the statutory requirements, regulatory trends, and judiciary interpretations are examined in the three jurisdictions. Indian system is associated with the high level of human authorship and traditional requirements of originality, which created ambiguity when it comes to ownership and protection of AI-created work. The European Union takes an approach of regulatory governance that emphasizes on issues of transparency, compliance with copyright, and safeguarding of training data and text-and-data mining, instead of redefining authorship itself. Conversely, China is more flexible and open to evolving interpretation with a copyright protection where there is reasonable human intellectual input or creative control of AI systems. The paper concludes that although there exists no jurisdiction that has conclusively answered the authorship question, all of them exhibit different policy priorities with regard to innovation, market regulation, as well as creative labour protection. The paper concludes based on the idea that a balanced approach connecting the principles of human-authorship and transparency instruments and the acknowledgement of AI-assisted creativity offers the most sustainable regulatory model. It recommends the harmonisation of more national frameworks through multilateral intellectual property efforts, clearer criteria on how to evaluate human input and that AI training should be ethically governed to keep the copyright law as relevant as it was previously in a more automated creative world.

INVESTOR BEHAVIOUR, SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE, AND CRYPTO TAX NON-COMPLIANCE Vidushi Singh Vihan, PhD Scholar, Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University (India) Dr. Afreen Almas, Assistant Professor, Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.28 This research examines the complex relationship between investor behaviour, social media influence, and crypto tax non-compliance within the evolving Indian regulatory framework governing virtual digital assets (VDAs). The rapid expansion of cryptocurrency participation in India, driven primarily by retail investors and digital trading platforms, has created significant compliance challenges for tax authorities despite the introduction of a specialised taxation regime under the Finance Act, 2022. The study analyses how behavioural finance factors such as herd mentality, overconfidence bias, loss aversion, and mental accounting shape investor decision-making patterns in highly volatile crypto markets and indirectly contribute to under-reporting or misreporting of taxable gains. The research further explores the role of social media ecosystems and finfluencers in constructing informal narratives that normalize speculative trading, downplay regulatory risks, and foster misconceptions regarding tax obligations. Algorithm-driven content amplification, targeted digital persuasion, and monetized influencer networks are shown to significantly affect investor perceptions of compliance costs and detection probabilities. The study situates these behavioural and technological dynamics within India’s broader legal architecture, including provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, SEBI regulatory initiatives, and intermediary liability norms under information technology law.

THE CONSTITUTION (130TH AMENDMENT) BILL, 2025: REMOVAL OF MINISTERS UPON DETENTION Ajmal. A, LLM in International Law, 3rd Semester, Student of Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.27 The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes a far-reaching constitutional intervention by mandating the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and other Ministers upon arrest and detention for thirty consecutive days in cases involving serious criminal offences. While the stated objective of the Bill is to address the long-standing concern of criminalisation of politics and to uphold probity in public life, the method adopted raises profound constitutional, democratic, and institutional concerns. This article undertakes a detailed doctrinal and constitutional analysis of the Bill by situating it within the existing framework of disqualification of legislators and Ministers, examining its compatibility with the basic structure doctrine, and drawing from scholarly commentary and comparative constitutional practices. The article argues that although the intent of cleansing politics is legitimate, automatic removal based on detention alone risks abuse of criminal process, undermines parliamentary democracy, and destabilises federal balance. The article concludes with recommendations for constitutionally sustainable alternatives.

TRACING THE RESIDUAL SHADOWS OF QUEER CRIMINALIZATION BEYOND SECTION 377 Anupriya Kumari, ICSSR Doctoral Fellow, Department of Law & Governance, Central University of South Bihar, Gaya (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.26 The judicial reading down and partial decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 which confined the provision’s operation to non-consensual acts and acts involving minors has not precipitated the dismantling of queer criminalization; rather, it has facilitated its reconstitution through less visible, yet equally coercive, legal and institutional mechanisms. This paper conceptualizes residual criminalization as a post-decriminalization phenomenon in which queer and trans persons remain targets of surveillance, regulation, and punitive control under adjacent statutes, including those related to public nuisance, obscenity, vagrancy, and trafficking. These legal instruments while facially neutral serve as vectors for the continued policing of non-normative sexualities and gender expressions. Deploying an interdisciplinary analytic that integrates queer criminology, postcolonial legal sociology, and abolitionist justice theory, the paper theorizes residual criminalization as a modality of structural violence. It argues that criminal law functions not merely as a framework for adjudication, but as a broader apparatus of state-sanctioned regulation and social abandonment particularly for those at the intersections of caste, class, gender non-conformity, and economic precarity. Beyond critique, the paper advances a normative vision for transformative legal futures, grounded in the concept of queer legal sovereignty. It proposes participatory legal architectures such as trans-led oversight mechanisms and community-embedded legal aid as essential correctives to the limitations of formal rights discourse. In doing so, the paper contends that the pursuit of queer justice in India necessitates not only legal reform, but a paradigmatic shift in how legality, legitimacy, and liberation are conceived and institutionalized.

BINDING NON-SIGNATORIES TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN INDIA Prakhar Singh, BA LLB (H), 5th year, 10th Semester Student at Amity University, Lucknow Campus (India). Dr Sheeba Khalid, Assistant Professsor at Amity University, Lucknow Campus (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.25 Arbitration in India is founded on consent party autonomy and contractual privity under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Traditionally only signatories to an arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate disputes. However, contemporary commercial transactions increasingly involve complex corporate groups consortium arrangements and composite contracts where several entities participate in performance without formally signing the arbitration clause. This practical reality has compelled Indian courts to evolve doctrines that permit binding of non-signatories to arbitration agreements. This paper undertakes a doctrinal examination of the judicial development of non-signatory arbitration in India with particular focus on the Group of Companies doctrine, alter ego principle, agency, estoppel and composite transaction theory. The research critically evaluates this shift from strict privity to constructive consent through the lens of Section 7, Section 8, Section 11 and Section 16 of the 1996 Act together with the principles of separability and kompetenz kompetenz. It also examines the interaction of these doctrines with fundamental maxims such as pacta sunt servanda, qui facit per alium facit per se and substance over form. Comparative references to France, United Kingdom and Singapore are used to contextualize the Indian position. The paper argues that while judicial innovation has enhanced commercial efficiency and prevented multiplicity of proceedings it has also diluted traditional notions of consent and introduced doctrinal uncertainty. The study concludes that India has adopted a pro arbitration but court driven framework for non-signatory binding and recommends structured judicial tests and legislative clarification to ensure predictability fairness and alignment with international standards.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND BLOCKCHAIN ANALYTICS IN DETECTING CRYPTO TAX EVASION Vidushi Singh Vihan, PhD Scholar, Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University (India). Dr.Afreen Almas, Assistant Professor, Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.24 This paper examines how artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain analytics can be operationalised as enforcement technologies to detect crypto tax evasion in India, while remaining compliant with evolving legal constraints on privacy and digital evidence. It situates the analysis within India’s post-2022 “virtual digital asset” (VDA) taxation architecture, including the statutory definition of VDA, the special charging and ring-fencing framework that taxes transfers at a flat rate with limited deductions, and the transaction-level reporting trail created through the one per cent tax deduction at source (TDS) mechanism on VDA transfers. It further maps the parallel expansion of anti-money laundering coverage to VDA service providers and explains how these compliance streams generate high-volume, high-granularity datasets suitable for automated risk scoring. On the technology side, the study details how blockchain forensics converts raw ledger data into investigable transaction graphs through address clustering, attribution, taint tracing, and typology-based risk signals, and how AI systems use these features to detect anomalies such as non-reporting, under-reporting, misclassification, offshore routing, chain-hopping, privacy-enhancing obfuscation, and circular or undervalued intra-group transfers. It argues that integrated models combining on-chain traces with off-chain records (exchange KYC, TDS data, FIU reports, and other regulatory filings) can reconstruct undeclared trading histories and prioritise cases with higher revenue risk more effectively than manual scrutiny.

HUMAN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT UNDER ICCPR: BALANCING STATE SOVEREIGNTY WITH GLOBAL ACCOUNTABILITY Adhishri Lawania, LLM student at DSNLU Vishakhapatnam (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.23 This paper explores how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) balances the tension between state sovereignty and global accountability in enforcing human rights. The Human Rights Committee (HRC), which oversees the Covenant, lacks binding powers and instead relies on state cooperation through periodic reports and individual communications under the First Optional Protocol (OP1). To strengthen accountability, the HRC has expanded its interpretive reach most notably through the “impact test” in General Comment No. 36 (GC 36), which broadens the Covenant’s extraterritorial scope. However, real progress is often limited by a compliance gap, as states resist external scrutiny in the name of constitutional autonomy and self-governance. The paper argues that true enforcement of the ICCPR does not depend on coercive authority but on the persuasive power of HRC findings, which, though not legally binding, can drive domestic legal and policy reform. Drawing on examples like young v. Australia, it shows how dialogue-based models between states and international bodies offer a practical path forward. In doing so, it highlights how the pursuit of global human rights protection continues to evolve within the realities of a world still deeply anchored in state sovereignty.