LIJDLR

Volume IV Issue III

BALANCING INNOVATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS: REASSESSING PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY IN AI GOVERNANCE

Volume IV Issue III /

BALANCING INNOVATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS: REASSESSING PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY IN AI GOVERNANCE Gaurav Anand, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Fourth Year, Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), New Delhi (India) Harsh Raj, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Fourth Year, Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.313 Artificial Intelligence is increasingly shaping governance, public administration, commercial decision-making, and everyday digital interactions. While AI offers significant benefits in innovation, efficiency, security, welfare delivery, and economic growth, its dependence on large-scale data extraction raises serious concerns for privacy, autonomy, dignity, and equality. This paper examines the central research problem of how AI systems, when deployed by the State and powerful private actors, may transform individuals into data subjects through profiling, behavioural prediction, biometric identification, surveillance, and opaque automated decision-making. The study adopts a rights-based and doctrinal legal approach to assess whether existing constitutional and statutory protections are adequate to respond to these risks in India. The paper analyses the constitutional foundations of privacy, dignity, autonomy, and equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It further evaluates the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and identifies its limitations in addressing algorithmic bias, inferential data, automated decision-making, and AI-specific accountability. Comparative insights are drawn from the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the EU AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The paper argues that India requires a comprehensive, human-rights-oriented AI governance framework. It recommends the establishment of an independent AI Ethics and Accountability Commission, mandatory AI Impact Assessments and Human Rights Impact Assessments for high-risk systems, stronger transparency and contestability rights, restrictions on biometric surveillance, and meaningful remedies for persons affected by automated decisions.

BALANCING INNOVATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS: REASSESSING PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY IN AI GOVERNANCE Read More »

MULTIPLE DYING DECLARATIONS AND THE SEARCH FOR RELIABILITY: JUDICIAL APPROACHES UNDER SECTION 26(A) OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

Volume IV Issue III /

MULTIPLE DYING DECLARATIONS AND THE SEARCH FOR RELIABILITY: JUDICIAL APPROACHES UNDER SECTION 26(A) OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 Jiya Dargar, BALLB (hons.), IX semester student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.312 A dying declaration is admissible under Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 even though the maker cannot be cross-examined. The rule rests on the assumption that a person facing death is unlikely to speak falsely. In practice, however, a victim may make more than one statement before death. When such statements differ on material points, including the identity of the assailant or the manner in which the injury was caused, courts must determine which declaration, if any, can safely be relied upon. This paper addresses that precise doctrinal and practical difficulty. Its focus is not on restating every condition for a valid dying declaration, but on examining judicial treatment of multiple and inconsistent declarations under Section 26(a). The paper adopts a doctrinal methodology by analysing the statutory text, leading Supreme Court decisions, standard Indian commentaries on evidence law, and limited comparative reference to the narrower English rule. Particular attention is given to authorities such as Amol Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, Jagbir Singh v State (NCT of Delhi), and the recent decision in Jemaben v State of Gujarat. The central argument is that the admissibility of a dying declaration is only the starting point; its reliability must be tested independently and contextually. Building on the multi-factor approach in Jagbir Singh, the paper proposes a compact five-step judicial sequence: chronological mapping, scrutiny of voluntariness and fitness, classification of material inconsistencies, conditional preference for independent recording, and reasoned judicial selection. This structured approach does not alter the existing doctrine. Rather, it converts established principles into a clearer procedural checklist, reduces the risk of selective acceptance, and promotes greater transparency in cases where the deceased has left behind conflicting accounts.

MULTIPLE DYING DECLARATIONS AND THE SEARCH FOR RELIABILITY: JUDICIAL APPROACHES UNDER SECTION 26(A) OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 Read More »

CHEQUE DISHONOUR AND CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA: ANALYSING THE SHIFT TOWARDS DECRIMINALISATION

Volume IV Issue III /

CHEQUE DISHONOUR AND CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA: ANALYSING THE SHIFT TOWARDS DECRIMINALISATION Rajbir Kaur, Research Scholar, Faculty of Law, Guru Kashi University, Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, Punjab (India) Arpana Bansal, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Guru Kashi University, Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, Punjab (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.311 Cheque dishonour occurs when a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds or other reasons. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 criminalises such dishonour under certain conditions. This has made cheque dishonour one the most litigated forms of financial offence in India with millions of pending cases in front of the courts today. Cheque dishonour was introduced as part of an amendment in 1988 to enhance the credibility of cheques and ultimately prevent payment defaults. Over time, concerns surrounding strict liability, excessive criminalisation of commercial disputes and increasing backlogs in the judicial system have arisen. Many legal scholars, policymakers and institutions including the Supreme Court of India and the Reserve Bank of India have been debating whether criminal prosecution continues to be an appropriate way to deal with bounced cheques. This article examines the legal framework and jurisprudential foundation of criminalising bounced cheques in India. Additionally, this paper looks at the current policy discussion regarding possible reforms. This study follows a doctrinal legal approach to determine the compatibility of Section 138 with important principles of criminal jurisprudence including mens rea, proportionality and restorative justice; however, this paper concludes that criminal liability for cheque dishonour should only apply to cases that involve fraud or intentional deception. Ordinary disputes over cheque dishonour should be handled through civil or administrative means. This study proposes a Hybrid model that includes civil remedies, administrative sanctions, and institutional reform through the creation of Financial Tribunals and the use of Mediation and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

CHEQUE DISHONOUR AND CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA: ANALYSING THE SHIFT TOWARDS DECRIMINALISATION Read More »

CANCEL CULTURE, DIGITAL VIGILANTISM, AND THE CHILLING EFFECT: ONLINE EXPRESSION AND MEDIA LAW IN INDIA

Volume IV Issue III /

CANCEL CULTURE, DIGITAL VIGILANTISM, AND THE CHILLING EFFECT: ONLINE EXPRESSION AND MEDIA LAW IN INDIA Ishaan Bhardwaj, BALLB, 3rd semester, Second Year, student at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune (India) Anushree Mukte, Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.310 The advent of cancel culture as a form of digital public discourse poses a significant challenge to freedom of expression in India by generating a form of horizontal chilling effect that operates beyond traditional constitutional restraints on State censorship. Unlike vertical restrictions governed by Article 19(1)(a), cancel culture involves decentralized social mobilization through digital platforms, where reputational condemnation, professional exclusion, and psychological harm may arise without meaningful opportunity to respond, judicial oversight, or procedural safeguards. This creates a constitutional lacuna in which informal social punishment can substantially affect expressive freedom without directly engaging the existing framework governing State action. The doctrinal foundation for examining this phenomenon lies in the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where vague and overbroad restrictions were invalidated for their potential to produce a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. This article argues that algorithmically amplified social condemnation can generate a structurally analogous chilling effect, although through informal and decentralized mechanisms rather than explicit legal prohibition. The resulting tension raises questions concerning the horizontal application of constitutional values, particularly freedom of expression and principles of procedural fairness, within digital public discourse. The article therefore contends that addressing cancel culture through expansive State regulation risks reproducing the very dangers of excessive speech control that Shreya Singhal sought to prevent. Instead, it proposes a resilience-based constitutional approach centred on four structural interventions: strengthening counter-speech as an alternative to cancellation, developing proportionate accountability norms for online communities, encouraging procedural fairness in digital accountability practices, and investing in digital literacy. Such an approach seeks to preserve democratic pluralism while mitigating the informal chilling effects generated by algorithmically amplified public condemnation.

CANCEL CULTURE, DIGITAL VIGILANTISM, AND THE CHILLING EFFECT: ONLINE EXPRESSION AND MEDIA LAW IN INDIA Read More »

BRIDGING THE GAP: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY REFORM UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2026, AND THE CASE FOR FULL ADOPTION OF THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY

Volume IV Issue III /

BRIDGING THE GAP: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY REFORM UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2026, AND THE CASE FOR FULL ADOPTION OF THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY Harsh Raj, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Final Year, Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.309 The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) transformed India’s domestic debt-resolution framework, yet for nearly a decade cross-border insolvency remained confined to Sections 234 and 235, two skeletal provisions dependent on bilateral reciprocity and letters of request that India never meaningfully operationalised. As Indian corporate groups accumulated overseas assets and foreign lenders extended credit to Indian borrowers, this statutory vacuum produced tribunal-led improvisation and, most visibly, parallel Delaware and Indian proceedings in the Byju’s insolvency, where GLAS Trust Company lacked any statutory mechanism for coordinated recognition, although the Supreme Court proceedings ultimately turned on a domestic procedural issue rather than cross-border recognition itself. This paper undertakes a doctrinal examination of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, which inserts Section 240C, Section 240B, and Chapter VA and moves India, at least textually, toward the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 1997. It argues that the 2026 Amendment is best understood as an unfinished reform: Section 240C, Section 240B, and the Chapter VA group insolvency framework were excluded from the commencement notification that brought the bulk of the Amendment into force on 26 May 2026, leaving foreign creditors without an operative recognition mechanism and group insolvency coordination still inoperative. Drawing on the legislative history from the Eradi and Irani Committees to the Insolvency Law Committee’s 2018 report, and on comparative practice in the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, and the European Union, the paper evaluates whether India’s calibrated, reciprocity-conscious approach is defensible or risks reproducing uncertainty. It recommends prompt rule-making under Section 240C, specialised NCLT capacity-building, and closer alignment with the Judicial Insolvency Network Guidelines.

BRIDGING THE GAP: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY REFORM UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2026, AND THE CASE FOR FULL ADOPTION OF THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY Read More »

A DOCTRINAL STUDY OF THE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY AND THE BREAKDOWN THEORY UNDER INDIAN LAWS

Volume IV Issue III /

A DOCTRINAL STUDY OF THE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY AND THE BREAKDOWN THEORY UNDER INDIAN LAWS Reetambhar Kumar Das, Ph.D. Research Scholar at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.308 Marriage under Indian law has traditionally been understood as a sacrament and a status relationship rather than a dissoluble contract. The fault theory of divorce, inherited largely from English ecclesiastical law and codified in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and allied matrimonial statutes, required a petitioner to prove a specific matrimonial offence adultery, desertion, or cruelty before a decree of divorce could be granted. Over the last five decades, however, the ground of cruelty has undergone a remarkable judicial transformation. Courts have progressively expanded the concept of “mental cruelty” to absorb within its situations where a marriage has, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist, even though no single act of the parties satisfies the classical, discrete definition of a matrimonial wrong. This paper traces that transformation and argues that cruelty, as judicially interpreted in India, has become the principal doctrinal vehicle through which courts recognise and give effect to the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” theory a theory that Parliament has, despite repeated recommendations of the Law Commission of India, declined to enact as an independent statutory ground. The paper examines the statutory framework governing cruelty across personal laws, surveys the leading Judicial pronouncements from Dastane v. Dastane to Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, and critically evaluates the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages that are dead in substance though alive in law. It concludes by arguing for a calibrated legislative reform that would codify irretrievable breakdown as a distinct ground, subject to safeguards protecting the economically weaker spouse, so that litigants need not rely on the judicial fiction of stretching “cruelty” to do the work that the breakdown principle was designed to do.

A DOCTRINAL STUDY OF THE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN MATRIMONIAL CRUELTY AND THE BREAKDOWN THEORY UNDER INDIAN LAWS Read More »

DUE PROCESS IN SECURITIES REGULATION: BALANCING SEBI’S ENFORCEMENT POWERS WITH NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

Volume IV Issue III /

DUE PROCESS IN SECURITIES REGULATION: BALANCING SEBI’S ENFORCEMENT POWERS WITH NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS Harsh Raj, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Final Year, Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), New Delhi (India) Sonia Arora, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Final Year, Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.307 SEBI investigates, prosecutes, and adjudicates within the same institution, under a statutory design Parliament is now reconsidering: the Securities Markets Code, 2025, tabled in the Lok Sabha in December 2025, proposes to fold the SEBI Act into a single consolidated statute and attach fixed timelines to enforcement. That concentration of function buys speed, but it also puts pressure on the fairness of the process, since the same regulator that frames an allegation often decides, in the first instance, whether it holds. This paper asks how Indian courts and the Securities Appellate Tribunal have policed that pressure point, using four recent flashpoints: the Supreme Court’s ruling in T. Takano v. SEBI on disclosure of investigation material, the Tribunal’s late-2025 order in the Salgaocar-Ketan Parekh matter restoring a right to cross-examine, the Supreme Court’s application of res judicata to SEBI’s own repeat proceedings in SEBI v. Ram Kishori Gupta, and the unresolved question of how long an ex-parte interim order under Section 11(4) can survive before it becomes punishment without a hearing. Read together, these episodes show a regulator whose statutory toolkit, built for speed and market protection, keeps colliding with the demands of audi alteram partem and reasoned decision-making. The paper traces this doctrinal path from general administrative-law authority on cross-examination through to current SEBI practice, sets it against the constitutional due-process standard in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and asks whether the Securities Markets Code, 2025 addresses the structural sources of that friction. It argues that SEBI’s own procedural regulations, not case-by-case litigation alone, need to catch up, and closes with concrete proposals: a statutory outer limit on ex-parte orders, a calibrated disclosure rule distinguishing relied-upon material from the wider investigation file, and a clearer separation between the officers who investigate and those who decide.

DUE PROCESS IN SECURITIES REGULATION: BALANCING SEBI’S ENFORCEMENT POWERS WITH NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS Read More »

ORCHESTRATING ACCOUNTABILITY: LIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM DEPLOYER IN AGENTIC AI UNDER INDIAN LAW

Volume IV Issue III /

ORCHESTRATING ACCOUNTABILITY: LIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM DEPLOYER IN AGENTIC AI UNDER INDIAN LAW Samarth Udasin, 5th year student of B.Sc.LL.B (Hons.) [Cyber Security] at National Law Institute University, Bhopal (India). Divyansh Rai, 5th year student of B.Sc.LL.B (Hons.) [Cyber Security] at National Law Institute University, Bhopal (India). Priyanshu Tripathi, 5th year student of B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal (India). Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.306 Agentic AI systems do not merely respond to queries they act, decompose goals, call APIs, enter transactions, and produce irreversible real-world consequences autonomously. That shift from tool to actor breaks every assumption on which India’s intermediary liability law rests. This paper argues that existing Indian law already assigns liability to the right party: the System Deployer, the entity that selects the AI model, integrates tools, engineers data flows, and directs the agent’s consequential actions. The principle is straightforward liability follows control. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 shows that the Deployer’s active orchestration role disqualifies it from safe harbour: while it qualifies as an intermediary under the statutory definition, it fails every substantive condition that Section 79(2) requires before that status translates into immunity. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 confirms this, designating the Deployer a Data Fiduciary who will carry non-delegable duties once Section 8 commences. SEBI’s algorithmic-trading framework demonstrates that Indian regulators already impose full liability on deploying entities regardless of algorithmic opacity. Tort principles of negligence and absolute liability complete the picture. Comparative analysis of the EU Digital Services Act and L’Oréal v eBay confirms global convergence. The paper concludes with a governance framework grounded in the RBI FREE-AI Report. No new legislation is needed.

ORCHESTRATING ACCOUNTABILITY: LIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM DEPLOYER IN AGENTIC AI UNDER INDIAN LAW Read More »

ADR AS A CATALYST FOR SUSTAINABLE JUSTICE: RETHINKING INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH UNDER THE 2030 AGENDA

Volume IV Issue III /

ADR AS A CATALYST FOR SUSTAINABLE JUSTICE: RETHINKING INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH UNDER THE 2030 AGENDA Rashiqa Akhtar, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia (India) Sheeza Afrin Khan, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.305 Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16) envisions peaceful, just, and inclusive societies grounded in accountable and effective institutions. Yet across jurisdictions, formal justice systems remain overburdened, adversarial, and inaccessible to many, particularly vulnerable communities. In this context, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has often been viewed merely as a procedural mechanism to reduce court congestion. This paper challenges that narrow perception and argues that ADR must be reconceptualised as a structural and operational instrument for advancing the normative vision of SDG 16. By examining core ADR mechanisms- mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and negotiation- the study maps their contribution to key SDG 16 targets. Dialogue and participatory dispute resolution processes not only resolve conflicts but also prevent their escalation, foster social cohesion, and build institutional trust. In doing so, ADR functions as a form of “peace infrastructure” within domestic and transnational governance systems. The paper further situates ADR within global peacebuilding efforts, including post-conflict reconciliation and community-based justice models. While acknowledging concerns regarding power imbalances, enforceability, and the potential privatisation of justice, it contends that the institutional integration of ADR within judicial, humanitarian, and developmental frameworks offers a pragmatic pathway toward sustainable peace. Through a doctrinal and analytical methodology supported by comparative and policy-oriented evaluation, the study positions ADR not as an alternative to justice, but as an essential component of sustainable governance in the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda. The study further highlights the need for institutional safeguards that ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness within ADR processes, thereby enhancing their contribution to sustainable governance and long-term social stability.

ADR AS A CATALYST FOR SUSTAINABLE JUSTICE: RETHINKING INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH UNDER THE 2030 AGENDA Read More »

NATIONAL SECURITY, ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION & HUMAN RIGHTS: A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Volume IV Issue III /

NATIONAL SECURITY, ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION & HUMAN RIGHTS: A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK Himanshu Tiwari, PhD Research Scholar Dharmashastra National Law University Jabalpur MP (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.304 The coexistence of national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental human rights have long posed a constitutional dilemma in India. This paper critically examines the trajectory of India’s counterterrorism framework from the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to the present Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to assess its conformity with the due process model envisaged under Articles 20 to 22 of the Constitution. Drawing on empirical data from the National Crime Records Bureau (2014-2023), judicial pronouncements, and official reports, it reveals that, despite successive legal reforms, the state’s reliance on the crime-control model has led to widespread misuse, prolonged detentions, and declining public faith in the justice system. The analysis underscores that safeguarding national security must not come at the cost of constitutional morality and procedural fairness. The paper argues for structural reforms such as establishing a Joint Committee on National Security and Human Rights and reinforcing the National Security Act, 1980, with procedural safeguards to ensure that counterterrorism laws remain instruments of justice rather than oppression. By integrating legal analysis with contemporary data and case law, the study contributes to ongoing debates on balancing liberty, security, and accountability within a democratic constitutional order.

NATIONAL SECURITY, ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION & HUMAN RIGHTS: A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK Read More »