LIJDLR

Volume IV Issue III

DEATH OF THE FAST TRACK: WHAT THE REMOVAL OF FAST-TRACK INSOLVENCY MEANS FOR MSME DISTRESS RESOLUTION

Volume IV Issue III /

DEATH OF THE FAST TRACK: WHAT THE REMOVAL OF FAST-TRACK INSOLVENCY MEANS FOR MSME DISTRESS RESOLUTION Rudraksh Anand, 2nd year Student pursuing LLM in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws course at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (India) Saniya Mishra, 2nd year Student pursuing LLM in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws course at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.293 As the competition in the market is rapidly growing, the contribution of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector in employment sector is striking in the Indian’s economy. But due to rapid increase in this sector, they usually face financial distress due to fluctuation in the market, late payments, increasing operating expenses and issues with credit availability. Therefore, to rescue these distressed MSMEs, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 plays a major role. The Chapter IV referred to as the Fast Track Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (Fast Track CIRP) in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides provisions for corporate insolvency of such companies. But these provisions were poorly implemented in practice. Accordingly, following the legislative changes initiated through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and enacted as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, Chapter IV of Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which contained the Fast Track CIRP framework, was omitted. The research paper analyzes the reasons for removal of the Fast-Track insolvency provisions and its impact on MSMEs. The paper also constitutes a comparative analysis of the legal framework for insolvency of small business in United Kingdom, United States and Singapore. The research concludes that there is no denying that the exclusion of Chapter IV in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 does a significant favour to the statutory scheme by building a parallel process, which has become largely redundant, but the article has shown that the challenges that remain faced by MSMEs are unique, stemming from their limited financial resources, heightened sensitivity to procedural delays and disproportionate cost associated with the ordinary Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings.

DEATH OF THE FAST TRACK: WHAT THE REMOVAL OF FAST-TRACK INSOLVENCY MEANS FOR MSME DISTRESS RESOLUTION Read More »

BALANCING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SECULARISM UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Volume IV Issue III /

BALANCING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SECULARISM UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION Jaishree Dabi, 4th year, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.292 India is a religiously diverse country with a constitutional democracy that accommodates a wide range of faiths, beliefs, and cultural customs. Because of this diversity, the State has a major obligation to uphold equality, social peace, and the rights of minority communities while safeguarding religious freedom. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution ensure freedom of religion in order to accommodate such pluralism, while the larger constitutional framework, which is strengthened by secularism as a component of the fundamental structure, aims to preserve equality, fraternity, and national unity. However, in order to preserve constitutional balance, judicial action is often necessary when religious activities collide with fundamental rights, public order, morality, and social transformation. This study analyzes the judiciary’s role in balancing these values, looks at whether freedom of religion and secularism are complementary or conflicting constitutional principles, and assesses whether the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) provides a constitutional solution to conflicts arising from different personal laws. It makes the case that secularism and religious freedom are complimentary ideals, with the judiciary upholding harmony through ideas like the basic structure concept, constitutional morality, harmonious construction, and the Essential Religious Practices doctrine. In order to show how various constitutional systems handle the relationship between religion and the state and to provide important lessons for India, the paper also looks at the constitutional framework, judicial developments, and comparative secular models of the United States, France, and Japan. The study comes to the conclusion that Indian secularism is better suited to the country’s religiously diverse culture because it is based on positive secularism or principled distancing. In order to maintain a dynamic balance between religious liberty, secularism, and social reform, it further concludes that the Uniform Civil Code should prioritize gender justice, equality, and constitutional values while respecting religious heterogeneity. The study also examines how judicial interpretation and constitutional principles have changed to deal with modern issues brought on by religious plurality in a democratic society.

BALANCING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SECULARISM UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION Read More »

REGULATING AI MONOPOLIES IN CRIME DETECTION MECHANISM

Volume IV Issue III /

REGULATING AI MONOPOLIES IN CRIME DETECTION MECHANISM Diana Das, 3rd Year, 6th Semester, 3 Years LL.B. (2023-2026), National Law University Odisha (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.291 Artificial Intelligence is increasingly being integrated into crime detection through predictive policing, facial recognition, crime-mapping, cyber-surveillance and financial fraud detection systems. While these technologies may enhance efficiency, speed and pattern recognition in law enforcement, their concentration in the hands of the State and a limited number of private technology vendors creates a distinct form of “AI monopoly” in criminal justice. This paper examines AI monopoly not merely as economic market dominance, but as functional control over data, algorithms and institutional policing infrastructure. The study aims to analyse the operational role of AI in contemporary crime detection, critically assess the impact of monopolised AI systems on investigation and surveillance practices, and propose regulatory safeguards to ensure accountability. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical approach, the paper evaluates the interaction between AI-driven policing and constitutional principles of equality, liberty, privacy, due process and procedural fairness. It argues that monopolised crime-detection technologies may reproduce historical bias, create feedback loops of over-policing, obscure decision-making through black-box algorithms and reduce the scope for independent human judgment. The paper further identifies the absence of a specific legal framework governing AI-based policing as a major regulatory gap. It recommends a rights-oriented accountability model based on data transparency, independent auditability, responsible data governance, human-in-the-loop decision-making, judicial oversight and statutory safeguards. Finally, the paper argues that constitutional values such as non-discrimination, privacy, fairness and due process must be embedded into the design, deployment and review of AI systems so that technological efficiency does not override the humane and constitutional foundations of criminal justice.

REGULATING AI MONOPOLIES IN CRIME DETECTION MECHANISM Read More »

THE DOCTRINAL OBSOLESCENCE OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS

Volume IV Issue III /

THE DOCTRINAL OBSOLESCENCE OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS Kushal Manish Jain, Student at National Forensic Sciences University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.290 Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the form of Large Language Models (LLM) and latent diffusion image generators, has caused an intricate structural crisis in international copyright law. In particular, this crisis concerns with the unauthorized ingestion, reproduction and synthesis of protected works for machine learning training. The first challenge, evidentiary burden of proof, is a formidable obstacle in enforcing the rights of AI developers with respect to procedural IP considerations. In procedural IP considerations, the evidentiary burden of proof is a monumental and often insurmountable hurdle for enforcing IP rights of an AI developer. In essence, AI systems are algorithmic “black boxes,” and it will be very hard for plaintiffs to establish that a specific creative piece was actually used in the training process, particularly if the output of the AI system is not visually or textually similar to the input. In this paper, the authors perform a comprehensive doctrinal examination of the evidentiary issues in modern AI copyright litigation. The research examines the principles of digital forensics, which are necessarily new and sophisticated, and explores their application with respect to traditional legal concepts like “access” and “substantial similarity,” which are ultimately inadequate for the architecture of neural networks. The paper proposes a theory that the plaintiffs are forced to increasingly and exclusively depend upon sophisticated digital forensic techniques, such as metadata analysis, dataset tracing, hash matching and memorization extraction techniques to meet the evidentiary requirements of the courts without statutory requirements mandating transparency of the data sets. In conclusion, the research calls for the formal inclusion of standardised digital forensic procedures in IP litigation and suggests that there should be a legislative change in the direction of compulsory auditing of datasets to facilitate fair enforcement of copyright in the digital era.

THE DOCTRINAL OBSOLESCENCE OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS Read More »

JURISTIC PERSONHOOD OF RIVERS IN INDIA: A CASE ANALYSIS OF SIVANUPANDIAN v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI

Volume IV Issue III /

JURISTIC PERSONHOOD OF RIVERS IN INDIA: A CASE ANALYSIS OF SIVANUPANDIAN v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI Giftson. J. S, 4th Year B.A. LL.B., Student at Government Law College, Theni (affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University) (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.289 This case analysis examines Sivanupandian v. District Collector, Tirunelveli, an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court concerning pollution of the river Tamirabarani. The pollution arose from a widespread local practice of disposing of the clothes and ash of deceased relatives at the river’s bathing ghats. What began as a petition relating to an encroachment eviction developed into a broader inquiry into the protection of the river, with the Court invoking the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 to restrain the pollution. The significance of this order lies in the Court’s method of reasoning. Rather than declaring the river a legal person purely as a natural resource, an approach the Supreme Court had earlier stayed in Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, the Madras High Court adopted a different route. It recognised the Tamirabarani as a deity worshipped by local communities, applying the established principle that Hindu idols and deities may hold legal rights. This enabled the Court to balance the right to religious practice under Article 25 with the right to a clean environment under Article 21 and the duty to protect nature under Article 51A(g), without addressing the wider, unresolved question of whether rivers as such can be recognised as legal persons. This case analysis examines the factual background, legal issues, the Court’s reasoning on each issue, and the ratio decidendi of the order. It further evaluates the significance of the decision as a distinct, faith-based approach to environmental personhood. The analysis considers whether this approach can provide Indian courts with a practical framework beyond the traditional anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches in future litigation concerning the protection of rivers.

JURISTIC PERSONHOOD OF RIVERS IN INDIA: A CASE ANALYSIS OF SIVANUPANDIAN v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI Read More »

THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF ARREST IN INDIA: FROM THE POWER AND NECESSITY OF ARREST TO THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE GROUNDS OF ARREST

Volume IV Issue III /

THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF ARREST IN INDIA: FROM THE POWER AND NECESSITY OF ARREST TO THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE GROUNDS OF ARREST Adv. Rajendra Kedge, Practising in Bombay High Court / other High Courts and Supreme Court, (India) Adv. Sunil Yadav, Practising in Bombay High Court / other High Courts and Supreme Court, (India) Adv. Archana Kedge, Practising in Bombay High Court, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.288 Arrest is among the most intrusive powers exercised by the State against the individual. Though legally distinct from guilt, arrest often produces consequences that extend beyond the criminal process, including reputational injury, social stigma, loss of employment, and impairment of personal and family relationships. These consequences become especially grave where proceedings ultimately end in discharge, acquittal, or exoneration. Indian constitutional jurisprudence has therefore increasingly treated arrest not merely as an investigative tool, but as a serious deprivation of personal liberty requiring constitutional justification. This paper examines the evolution of Indian arrest jurisprudence from the distinction between the power to arrest and the necessity to arrest, developed in Joginder Kumar and Arnesh Kumar, to the contemporary right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1). It analyses the relationship between Articles 14, 21 and 22(1), the statutory safeguards under the CrPC and the BNSS, and the developing distinction between ‘reasons for arrest’ and accused-specific ‘grounds of arrest’. Particular attention is given to Pankaj Bansal, Ram Kishor Arora, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, Kasireddy Upender Reddy, Mihir Rajesh Shah, Karan Singh and Dr Rajinder Rajan. The central thesis is that Indian arrest law is moving from a power-centric model towards a constitutional accountability model consisting of four sequential safeguards: lawful power, demonstrable necessity, meaningful communication of grounds and effective judicial scrutiny. The paper’s distinctive contribution lies in its analysis of the temporal operation of the written-communication requirement, especially the expression ‘henceforth’ in Mihir Rajesh Shah. It argues that while Article 22(1) protected arrested persons before that decision, Mihir Rajesh Shah standardised the future procedural regime for written communication of grounds. This distinction is essential to evaluating non-compliance in both pre-Mihir and post-Mihir arrests.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF ARREST IN INDIA: FROM THE POWER AND NECESSITY OF ARREST TO THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE GROUNDS OF ARREST Read More »

FROM ADR TO ODR: EXAMINING ONLINE ARBITRATION, LEGAL CHALLENGES, AND DATA PROTECTION CONCERNS IN THE DIGITAL ERA

Volume IV Issue III /

FROM ADR TO ODR: EXAMINING ONLINE ARBITRATION, LEGAL CHALLENGES, AND DATA PROTECTION CONCERNS IN THE DIGITAL ERA Shruchi Prasad, 4th year BA.LLB. (Hons.) Student, Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR (India) Prerna Kumari, 4th year BA.LLB. (Hons.) Student, Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.287 “When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration?” by Benjamin Franklin. ODR websites have become an unavoidable tool within the modern online environment, as it is necessitated to enable risky conflict management within the online business and international transactions setting. ODR combines the classical Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) practices such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation with high-tech innovation. In this script, ADR is examined and the development of ADR into ODR is explored with a specific focus on online arbitration. Even though the process of digitalization has significant advantages to the arbitration process, it also presents an extensive array of complex challenges that requires careful consideration. Major concerns include weak cybersecurity, data confidentiality, procedural fairness, technological access difference between disagreeing parties, enforceability of arbitration decisions, and lack of face-to-face communication. The paper explores the issue of data protection in the digital environment, clarifying the basic concepts of data protection and the issues that appear due to the current enforcement systems in the domain of online arbitration. It also reflects on how applicable rules like the GDPR are to an arbitration process, especially in international disputes relating to the cross-border cases where jurisdictional and compliance facts are often raised. This paper will discuss the process in which the legal systems of the EU, India and US are moving toward online disputes resolution (ODR) and online arbitration by comparing the three legal systems. It outlines defensive safeguards to the safety of party data and achieving equitable results, and offers remedies to enhance confidence, transparency, and efficiency in technology-driven procedures that do not reduce the fundamentals of arbitration in the age of technology.

FROM ADR TO ODR: EXAMINING ONLINE ARBITRATION, LEGAL CHALLENGES, AND DATA PROTECTION CONCERNS IN THE DIGITAL ERA Read More »

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE

Volume IV Issue III /

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Omkar Acharya, LLM, 2nd Semester,Fakir Mohan University, PG Department of Law, Odisha, (India) Shibanee Acharya, LLM, 2nd Semester,Fakir Mohan University, PG Department of Law, Odisha, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.286 The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed digital innovation while raising complex legal and constitutional concerns. Among its most disruptive manifestations is deepfake technology, which enables the creation of realistic synthetic audio, video and images capable of blurring the distinction between fact and fabrication. In India, the misuse of deepfakes has raised serious concerns relating to privacy, misinformation, electoral integrity, cybercrime, defamation, intellectual property, national security and gender-based digital violence. While the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provide partial remedies, they do not fully address the regulatory challenges posed by AI-generated synthetic media. This paper critically examines India’s legal framework on deepfakes and Generative AI, particularly in light of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and judicial developments concerning privacy, free speech, dignity and digital governance. Using doctrinal and comparative legal research methods, the study also evaluates international approaches, including the European Union AI Act, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and selected regulatory measures in the United States and China. It argues for a constitutionally grounded and risk-based AI governance framework that ensures accountability, transparency and protection of individual rights while preserving technological innovation. The paper recommends dedicated AI regulation incorporating algorithmic accountability, mandatory watermarking of AI-generated content, platform liability and institutional oversight mechanisms. The study contributes to digital constitutionalism by proposing legal reforms aligned with Indian constitutional principles and the evolving digital landscape.

DEEPFAKES AND GENERATIVE AI IN INDIA: RETHINKING THE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Read More »

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL COMMERCIAL JUSTICE

Volume IV Issue III /

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL COMMERCIAL JUSTICE Rahul Basak, 1st Year,LL.B Student of Amity University Kolkata, (India) Saptarnab Basu, 1st Year, LL B Student of Amity University Kolkata, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.285 This research examines Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an emerging mechanism for transforming corporate and commercial dispute resolution and strengthening corporate governance in digitally enabled markets. It undertakes a comparative legal study of India and the United States to assess whether ODR can deliver faster, more cost-effective, and legally enforceable outcomes for shareholders, investors, creditors, companies, and other stakeholders while preserving procedural fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and data security. The study adopts a doctrinal and comparative approach by analysing statutes, regulatory circulars, judicial precedents, institutional practices, and selected ODR platform models. It contrasts India’s increasingly regulator-led framework, particularly SEBI’s securities-market ODR mechanism, with the United States’ more contract-driven and market-oriented ADR ecosystem, where private institutions and digital platforms play a central role. The paper identifies three central conditions for effective corporate ODR. First, ODR outcomes must rest on clear statutory and contractual foundations concerning enforceability, consent, electronic records, and limited but meaningful judicial review. Secondly, algorithmic tools used in digital dispute systems must be supported by transparency, human oversight, auditability, and safeguards against bias so that efficiency does not undermine due process. Thirdly, corporate ODR requires lawful and secure cross-border data governance, particularly where sensitive commercial records, investor information, and confidential communications are processed through digital platforms. On this basis, the paper proposes a model ODR clause for corporate governance documents, an algorithmic transparency protocol, and targeted policy recommendations for regulators, ADR institutions, and corporate boards. By integrating legal, technological, and governance perspectives, the study offers practical guidance for the responsible adoption of digital dispute-resolution mechanisms in the era of digital commercial justice.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL COMMERCIAL JUSTICE Read More »

INSTITUTIONALIZING ARBITRATION IN INDIA: FROM AD HOC TO INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

Volume IV Issue III /

INSTITUTIONALIZING ARBITRATION IN INDIA: FROM AD HOC TO INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE Afreen Afshar Alam, Ph.D. Scholar, Indian Law Institute (Deemed University), New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.284 Over the past few decades, arbitration in India has largely operated in an ad hoc form. While this model is meant to preserve party autonomy, its application has often led to uneven procedures, increasing costs, and repeated court intervention. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought to bring Indian law in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law and to limit judicial oversight. Even so, the shift in legislation did not address deeper structural concerns, and challenges to arbitral awards have continued to arise with regularity. Proceedings were delayed. Commercial parties continued to view enforcement as uncertain. This paper examines India’s move toward institutional arbitration as more than a technical amendment. It treats the shift as an effort to reorganize how arbitration is administered. The discussion traces this development through the Law Commission’s 246th Report, the Amendments of 2015, 2019, and the 2021 amendments. It also engages with key Supreme Court decisions on public policy and arbitral autonomy. In addition, the paper draws on an interview conducted by the author with Mr. Navjeet Bhudhiraja, former Additional Coordinator and Deputy Registrar of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, to illustrate how institutional procedures operate in practice. The paper argues that recent reforms have introduced clearer timelines, more structured fee arrangements, and stronger safeguards around arbitrator independence. At the same time, statutory change alone cannot reshape professional habits. The turn toward institutions has modified the framework within which arbitration operates in India. Whether it reshapes arbitral culture in a lasting way will depend on consistent judicial approach, institutional competence, and the willingness of practitioners to adapt their methods to a more disciplined system.

INSTITUTIONALIZING ARBITRATION IN INDIA: FROM AD HOC TO INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE Read More »