LIJDLR

Volume IV Issue II

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A JURIDICAL PERSON: RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ERA OF AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING BY AI

Volume IV Issue II /

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A JURIDICAL PERSON: RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ERA OF AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING BY AI Aditya Pal, JRF-Ph.D., 2nd Semester, Scholar at SICMSS, Rashtriya Raksha University, Gandhinagar-382305 (India) Honey Shankhwar, LL.M (Business Law), 2nd Semester, Student at Dharmashastra National Law University (DNLU), Jabalpur-482001 (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.164 Artificial Intelligence OR simply AI has evolved rapidly from its humble beginnings in ‘cybernetics’ and ‘machine learning’ (ML) into a pervasive force which is now shaping governance, commerce and even social interactions. Following the trajectory of its evolution and developments like ‘Large Language Models’(LLMs), generative AI, Internet of Things (IoT), and the race of achieving ‘Artificial General Intelligence’, the time is now ripe to address the issue of accountability with regards to the ‘autonomous’ acts of AI systems. Traditional legal regimes were designed for humans and corporate entities. However, in the age of AI, it seems to be struggling to address the harms caused by autonomous acts of the AI systems, such as algorithmic biases in decision making, misinformation OR misrepresentation, accidents due to ‘self-driving’ (auto pilot) vehicles like in the case of a self-driving Uber vehicle (modified 2017 Volvo XC90 SUV operated by Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group) in 2018. This paper explores the idea of granting legal personality to AI so as to make it accountable, given the nature of evolution that it is going through. This research critically evaluates India’s fragmented and inadequate AI governance regime, including the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and India’s evolving AI policy architecture, spanning NITI Aayog’s National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (#AIforALL, 2018), NITI Aayog’s Principles for Responsible AI (2021), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s India AI Governance Guidelines (2025) issued under the IndiaAI Mission. It also undertakes a comparative analysis with global approaches, including the European Union’s AI Act and the regulatory approaches adopted by Japan and the United Arab Emirates toward AI accountability in commercial contexts. Arguments for and against granting juridical personality to AI are also examined. This paper proposes a ‘hybrid’ approach of granting ‘quasi-juridical’ personhood to AI in India, while combining shared accountability between the developers and deployers of AI systems alongside AI system itself.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A JURIDICAL PERSON: RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ERA OF AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING BY AI Read More »

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THE MODERN ERA

Volume IV Issue II /

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THE MODERN ERA Nivea Robin D Cruz, LL.M (Criminal Law), 3rd Semester, Student at Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.163 Criminal investigation has undergone a significant transformation in the modern era due to rapid technological advancements, globalization, and evolving patterns of crime. Traditional investigative methods, which relied heavily on eyewitness testimony and confessions, have gradually been supplemented and in some cases replaced by sophisticated tools such as forensic science, digital surveillance, artificial intelligence, and cyber investigation techniques.  This research paper examines the evolution of criminal investigation in the modern era, focusing on its methods, challenges, and legal implications. The study also explores how investigative practices differ across jurisdictions, particularly between India and other developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. While developed countries often emphasize technological integration and procedural safeguards, developing systems face challenges including resource constraints, delays, and procedural inefficiencies. This paper attempts to focus on doctrinal and comparative methodology, analysing statutory frameworks, judicial interpretations as well as scholarly opinions. Key issues such as cybercrime, forensic advancements, human rights concerns, and cross-border investigations are discussed in detail.The research concludes that while modern investigative tools have enhanced efficiency and accuracy, they also raise concerns regarding privacy, misuse of power, and ethical boundaries. The study recommends legal reforms, improved training, technological investment, and international cooperation to strengthen investigative frameworks.Overall, the paper highlights that the future of criminal investigation lies in balancing technological innovation with legal safeguards and human rights protections.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THE MODERN ERA Read More »

FISCAL FEDERALISM: THE SCOPE OF UNION INTERVENTION IN STATE “FREEBIE” CULTURES

Volume IV Issue II /

FISCAL FEDERALISM: THE SCOPE OF UNION INTERVENTION IN STATE “FREEBIE” CULTURES Aakash Jogpal, LL.M, 2nd Semester, Student at Gujarat National Law University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.162 The proliferation of “freebie” culture by state governments is one of the most contested practices within India’s constitutional fiscal architecture. It gives rise to an intense constitutional and economic debate concerning the proper limits of federal intervention. This paper examines the tension between the fiscal emergency powers of the Union and the constitutional guarantees of fiscal federalism afforded to states in resource allocation. Drawing upon theories of fiscal federalism, this paper interrogates whether, and to what extent, the Union may legitimately act when state expenditures disturb macroeconomic stability and threaten to precipitate a fiscal emergency. The Constitution of India provides certain fiscal oversight tools—Article 293 (state borrowing limits), Article 360 (financial emergency), and Article 280 (Finance Commission)—however, these mechanisms are structurally inadequate and politically constrained in addressing the systemic problem of competitive electoral welfare promises that erode fiscal discipline. The paper further identifies a critical research gap: the absence of a clear legal standard for distinguishing constitutionally permissible welfare expenditure from fiscally reckless populism. Through doctrinal analysis, comparative constitutional study, and judicial review, the study critically evaluates the adequacy of existing constitutional tools and proposes an institutional framework for structured Union intervention. The study concludes by proposing a principled framework for Union intervention grounded in legal principles, democratic accountability, and rights-based public finance governance. It recommends the establishment of a Fiscal Stability Council at the state level, reform of Article 293 conditionalities, and a legislative framework that codifies the boundary between legitimate welfare and reckless populism.

FISCAL FEDERALISM: THE SCOPE OF UNION INTERVENTION IN STATE “FREEBIE” CULTURES Read More »

THE DATA PROTECTION BOARD OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS INDEPENDENCE, ADJUDICATORY POWERS, AND THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL MEMBERS

Volume IV Issue II /

THE DATA PROTECTION BOARD OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS INDEPENDENCE, ADJUDICATORY POWERS, AND THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL MEMBERS Aalya Hussain, LL.M, Student at Faculty of Legal Studies, Usha Martin University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.161 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), marks a watershed moment in India’s journey towards establishing a comprehensive data protection framework. Central to this legislative architecture is the Data Protection Board of India (DPB), a body vested with significant adjudicatory powers, including the authority to impose penalties up to ₹250 crore. This paper offers a critical analysis of the statutory and functional independence of the DPB and concludes that the DPB’s design, which involves executive-dominated appointments, the lack of judicial members, and insufficient institutional protection, raises serious constitutional issues. Through a comparative analysis with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), this paper demonstrates that the DPB’s institutional architecture falls short of the independence standards necessary for a body adjudicating matter touching upon the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21. The paper further analyzes the DPDP Rules, 2025, particularly the “digital office” concept, and assesses its implications for adjudicatory fairness. It concludes with recommendations for structural reforms to align the DPB with constitutional mandates and global best practices.

THE DATA PROTECTION BOARD OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS INDEPENDENCE, ADJUDICATORY POWERS, AND THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL MEMBERS Read More »

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY: INDIA’S BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 VIS-A-VIS THE US FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE EU eIDAS REGULATION

Volume IV Issue II /

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY: INDIA’S BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 VIS-A-VIS THE US FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE EU eIDAS REGULATION Mr. Shubh Gupta, B.A. LL.B. (H), 10th Semester, Student at Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.160 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) represents a landmark legislative overhaul of India’s law of evidence, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with a framework ostensibly calibrated for the digital age. This paper undertakes a systematic comparative analysis of the electronic evidence admissibility regime under the BSA vis-a-vis two of the most developed and influential frameworks globally: the United States Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and the European Union’s Regulation on Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS Regulation, 910/2014). Through doctrinal analysis and comparative legal methodology, the study scrutinises the conditions for admissibility, authentication standards, presumptive validity of electronic signatures, evidentiary weight accorded to electronic records, and cross-border recognition. The paper identifies three cardinal tensions. First, the BSA, despite reforms, continues to require rigid procedural certification (akin to the erstwhile Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) without fully embracing the flexible, process-based authentication models of the FRE. Second, while the eIDAS Regulation establishes a graduated trust hierarchy for electronic signatures with automatic evidentiary presumptions, neither the BSA nor the FRE has crafted a comparable statutory presumption of authenticity. Third, the cross-border recognition gap under the BSA remains acute when compared to the mandatory mutual recognition regime within the EU under eIDAS. The paper concludes with concrete suggestions for legislative reform, including adoption of a graduated authentication standard under the BSA, establishment of a statutory presumption for certified electronic records, and India’s accession to multilateral digital evidence treaties, to align India’s evidentiary framework with international best practices.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY: INDIA’S BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 VIS-A-VIS THE US FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE EU eIDAS REGULATION Read More »

BLACK BOX LENDING: ALGORITHMIC CREDIT SCORING, THE EXPLANATORY DEFICIT, AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR CREDIT UNDER INDIA’S DIGITAL LENDING FRAMEWORK

Volume IV Issue II /

BLACK BOX LENDING: ALGORITHMIC CREDIT SCORING, THE EXPLANATORY DEFICIT, AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR CREDIT UNDER INDIA’S DIGITAL LENDING FRAMEWORK Vaibhav Vishwanath Khedkar, Ph.D., Research Scholar at ABMS Parishad Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Pune, Maharashtra (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.159 India’s digital lending market is projected to reach USD 515 billion by 2030 and is increasingly spread by algorithmic credit scoring systems. These are the statistical models that ingest vast datasets and produce a single numerical decision outcome regarding the eligibility of the credit to the person. The convenience offered by these systems is real. However, these systems have raised the problem of the inability to justify adverse credit decisions and the inability of the lender’s own staff to provide meaningful explanations for such decisions. This paper examines the consequential doctrinal question of whether India’s existing legal framework, as provided in the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005, the Reserve Bank of India (Digital Lending) Directions 2025, RBI’s Fair Practices Code, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has efficacy to enforce right to explanation for adverse algorithmic credit decisions. Through this doctrinal analysis of primary legal sources and comparative reference to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act framework, the paper suggests that India suffers from a structural “explanatory deficit”. This gap is between the frequency and consequence of automated credit decisions and the available legal remedy. The paper further argues on the deficit raises constitutional concerns. The denial of an intelligible reason for a credit refusal implicates the guarantee of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the right to have economic dignity and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The paper concludes with targeted legislative and regulatory recommendations, which includes the mandatory adverse action notice requirement, sectoral algorithmic auditability standards, and an independent credit grievance adjudicatory mechanism.

BLACK BOX LENDING: ALGORITHMIC CREDIT SCORING, THE EXPLANATORY DEFICIT, AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR CREDIT UNDER INDIA’S DIGITAL LENDING FRAMEWORK Read More »

CROSS-BORDER MEDIA ACCESSIBILITY UNDER GATS: A STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE PERSPECTIVE

Volume IV Issue II /

CROSS-BORDER MEDIA ACCESSIBILITY UNDER GATS: A STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE PERSPECTIVE Valli S P, LL.M, 1st year, Student at University of Mysore (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.158 This paper analyses cross-border media accessibility within the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), with particular focus on the structural conditions that shape participation in global media markets. While GATS establishes a system of liberalisation through principles such as market access and national treatment, its reliance on negotiated commitments produces differentiated outcomes among member states. These outcomes are often shaped by disparities in economic capacity and bargaining power, which influence the extent to which countries are able to secure favourable commitments and effectively participate in global trade in services. The paper further examines how the classification of media as a tradable service creates a tension between its commercial character and its role as a carrier of cultural expression. This tension becomes more pronounced in the context of global media flows, where dominant industries are better positioned to expand their reach, often at the expense of diverse cultural representation. In addition, the study considers the growing role of digital platforms in shaping content distribution and visibility, highlighting how control over access increasingly shifts from regulatory frameworks to platform-based systems that operate beyond traditional trade disciplines. By analysing these interconnected dimensions, the paper argues that cross-border media access is shaped by a combination of legal, economic, and technological factors that operate unevenly across countries. It demonstrates that the GATS framework, while facilitating liberalisation, functions within existing structural constraints that limit equitable participation. These findings underscore the need to situate trade-based regulation within the broader context of global economic disparities and evolving digital infrastructures.

CROSS-BORDER MEDIA ACCESSIBILITY UNDER GATS: A STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE PERSPECTIVE Read More »

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIATORS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE FAMILY LAW

Volume IV Issue II /

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIATORS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE FAMILY LAW Gracy Tanwar, LL.M, Student at National Law University, Odisha (India) Siddharth Abhishek, LL.M, Student at National Law University, Odisha (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.157 The issue of matrimonial disagreement constitutes one of the most emotionally charged and socially sensitive issues in the system of law. Conventional litigation tends to further the animosity among the partners and can cause a lengthy court battle which can be detrimental to the family, especially their children. In this regard, mediation has been a strong alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool that boasts of dialogue, collaboration and win-win solutions. Mediators are important in ensuring the communication process, determining their underlying interests, and leading the parties to friendly solutions without giving a verdict. Mediation of matrimonial disputes has been an issue of importance in India, where institutional means of doing so have been established including Family Courts, mediation centres, and statutory provisions under procedural laws. Mediating matrimonial disputes (such as divorce, maintenance, custody and domestic) are increasingly referred to court prior to adjudication. The reason is that the process is supposed to maintain relationships where it can be maintained, lower litigation expenses, and lighten the burden of courts. Research has shown that mediation often results in faster settlements and greater compliance with the agreement since the results are negotiated by the parties themselves. This research paper analyses the role of mediators in marital conflicts, their functions, legal provisions, merits, and weaknesses, and issues that are practical. The paper also assesses the role of mediation in resolving disputes in the family law and also examines how mediation systems can be enhanced in India.

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIATORS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE FAMILY LAW Read More »

EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF POSH ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN INDIAN SERVICE LAW: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT, JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, AND PRACTICAL IMPEDIMENTS IN WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT REDRESSAL

Volume IV Issue II /

EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF POSH ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN INDIAN SERVICE LAW: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT, JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, AND PRACTICAL IMPEDIMENTS IN WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT REDRESSAL Linshi Naresh Kharat, LL.M (Constitutional Law), Student at Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.156 The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the POSH Act) stands as a landmark statute in India’s gender protection architecture, emerging from decades of advocacy following the Vishaka judgment of 1997. More than a decade following its enactment, the efficacy of the POSH Act remains contested. While the Act has catalysed structural institutional mechanisms through Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and Local Complaints Committees (LCCs), implementation gaps persist across formal and informal sectors. This paper comprehensively evaluates the efficacy of POSH Act implementation through three dimensions: the legislative and constitutional framework, the evolving jurisprudence particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2023-2025 interventions, and the empirical reality of compliance and service law application. The analysis demonstrates that although the Act represents a sophisticated amalgamation of prevention, prohibition, and redressal mechanisms grounded in fundamental rights jurisprudence, its efficacy is significantly constrained by procedural ambiguities, inconsistent compliance, sectoral disparities, and institutional capacity deficits. This paper argues that efficacy must be reassessed not merely as formal compliance but as substantive access to justice, survivor agency, and workplace cultural transformation. The paper concludes with recommendations for legislative harmonisation, institutional strengthening, and enforcement mechanisms calibrated to the realities of India’s diverse labour market.

EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF POSH ACT IMPLEMENTATION IN INDIAN SERVICE LAW: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT, JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, AND PRACTICAL IMPEDIMENTS IN WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT REDRESSAL Read More »

PRIVACY, SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE

Volume IV Issue II /

PRIVACY, SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE Arun Jaijeev, BBA LL. B, 6th Semester, Student at Christ Academy Institute of Law, Hullahalli, Begur Koppa Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka (India) Chilakala Aswini, BBA LL. B, 6th Semester, Student at Christ Academy Institute of Law, Hullahalli, Begur Koppa Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.155 The enactment of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 arrives at a critical juncture following the Supreme Court’s historic affirmation in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, and the judgment recognised privacy as an intrinsic facet of the constitutional right to life and liberty. This paper undertakes a critical examination of whether the statutory framework governing data protection effectively upholds privacy entitlements against state-initiated surveillance operations within India’s evolving digital ecosystem. Employing a doctrinal research methodology, the study scrutinises two particularly contentious features of the legislation: Section 36, which confers upon the government broad authority to compel data fiduciaries and intermediaries to disclose information, and the graduated exemption regime under Section 17, which largely absolves national security apparatuses from compliance with core statutory obligations. The analysis demonstrates that these provisions encounter substantial difficulties when subjected to the four-pronged proportionality test articulated in Puttaswamy. Specifically, the legislative scheme lacks robust procedural checks such as pre-authorisation by judicial authorities, fails to establish that sweeping data access represents the least restrictive means available, and extends beyond recognised legitimate state interests to encompass routine administrative functions. The absence of independent oversight institutions, combined with gag provisions that prevent individuals from discovering when the state has accessed their personal information, effectively nullifies the right to informational self-determination and the right to erasure. The paper additionally considers real-world manifestations of these vulnerabilities, including the Pegasus spyware episode and the Sanchar Saathi mandate controversy, before offering reform recommendations drawn from comparative legal frameworks in the European Union and United States

PRIVACY, SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE Read More »