Volume IV Issue I

BEYOND DOUBT, BUT NOT BEYOND REASON: REASSESSING THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD Aashi Bindal, SY. BALL.B, Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.30 The concept of Preponderance of Probability is a foundational standard of proof in Civil Jurisprudence. Unlike the stringent threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt” in Criminal trials, this standard emphasizes the greater likelihood of one version of events over the other. This article explores the historical emergence, doctrinal basis, statutory anchoring, and judicial interpretations of the preponderance standard in both Indian and comparative legal contexts. It discusses key elements such as the weighing of evidence, judicial discretion, and logical coherence, along with its diverse applications from Civil and Matrimonial Disputes to Departmental Enquiries, POSH cases, and exceptions within Criminal law. Through an analysis of leading case laws and statutory provisions, the article critically evaluates the strengths, criticisms, and future pathways for the doctrine. It concludes by recommending greater clarity, training, and technological integration to strengthen its utility in modern Civil litigation.

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.