LIJDLR

Volume IV Issue III

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 »

CRYPTOCURRENCIES AS CHOSES IN ACTION: THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT MODEL UNDER INDIAN AND COMMON LAW

Volume IV Issue III /

CRYPTOCURRENCIES AS CHOSES IN ACTION: THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT MODEL UNDER INDIAN AND COMMON LAW Mikhail Alekseevich Uspenskiy, 2nd year ,Postgraduate Student, Faculty of Law, Specialization 5.1.3 – Private Law (Civil Law) Studies, State Academic University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russian Federation (India) Chander Mohan Gupta, Phd Prestige institute of management and research Indore (India) Advocate Khushbu Sangwan, Practising Lawyer, LLM post graduate from India International University of Legal Education and Research (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.303 Most of the research done so far has failed to recognize the specific legal nature of the Bitcoin protocol. This paper argues that as per the Indian Contract Act 1872 the Bitcoin’s protocol should be seen as an umbrella agreement: that is essentially a framework through which a set of organizational obligations can be generated by conduct. For example, a node operator who installs and runs the software that is in agreement with the consensus, in fact agrees to the protocol’s rules just like an individual agrees with the standard terms of a contract at a typical web-site on the Internet. This paper further examines chose in action categorization through three objections: (a) uncertainty of contract terms, (b) absence of intention to create legal relations, and (c) no consideration, and demonstrates that each one does not work when tested against Indian law. The Section 29’s determinability standard, the conduct-based acceptance acknowledged by the Information Technology Act, and Chinnaya v. Ramayya’s supporting third-party consideration all are indicative of the same line of thought. The upshot is that Bitcoin’s legal recognition can be founded on a doctrinally coherent basis which neither calls for legislative intervention nor deviation from established civil law principles and which can be followed by other common law jurisdictions as a model.In legal terms, participation of full nodes in a blockchain network may therefore be conceptualised as an organisational commitment to apply and uphold the system’s validation rules. As for the Bitcoin network, it arises from an offer, defined as in the Whitepaper, and full nodes join it through implied conduct by installing the software. Thus, Bitcoin may be generally qualified as an umbrella agreement, with protocol rules as essential terms governing future transactions within a technologically enforced coordination mechanism.

CRYPTOCURRENCIES AS CHOSES IN ACTION: THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT MODEL UNDER INDIAN AND COMMON LAW Read More »

PROTECTION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORMS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Volume IV Issue III /

PROTECTION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORMS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Parveen Kumar, Advocate registered in bar council of Haryana and Punjab Chandigarh (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.302 This paper aims to discuss the protection of minority shareholders in India, mainly through the prism of corporate governance reforms. The Companies Act 2013 and current corporate governance rules and regulations will be examined to identify mechanisms and remedies for the oppression and mismanagement of minority shareholders. Particular attention will be paid to the provisions of the Companies Act 2013, namely Sections 241-246, the requirements for a petition under Section 244, and the reliefs available from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 245. In addition, SEBI’s listing and disclosure rules regarding related-party transactions and changes in control are also considered. Using the doctrinal method, this paper analyses actual cases when minority shareholders can and do overcome the difficulties of proving and providing relief from oppression and mismanagement. For example, the famous conflict between Tata and Mistry is considered through the lens of the oppression and mismanagement doctrine. Furthermore, this paper compares India’s approach and its effectiveness in protecting minority shareholders with those of several foreign countries, namely the UK unfair prejudice remedy under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 and Australia’s approach of oppression under Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001. By assessing the relevance of India’s corporate governance and legal framework for minority shareholders, this paper concludes that India has managed to take steps toward balancing the interests of minority and majority shareholders and ensuring the efficiency of the company’s management. However, it still has problems with implementing the current law, which is due to several factors, such as high thresholds for minority shareholders, heavy onus of proof, and a restrictive interpretation of “just and equitable” and oppression. Therefore, this paper proposes to consider steps to reforming corporate law, governance rules, and regulation, and practice to improve the current situation from the perspectives of both minority and majority shareholders. This paper also highlights topics for future research, including an assessment of minority shareholders’ rights and their enforcement, analysis of institutional investors’ behaviour, and examining ESG-related corporate governance reforms on minority shareholders.

PROTECTION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORMS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Read More »

ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN INDIA

Volume IV Issue III /

ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN INDIA Priya Anand, B.A.LL.B (H), 2026, 7th semester, Amity law school, Amity University, Patna (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.301 The word forensic means the connection to the law and courts as it is connected with several branches which help to find suspects and accused persons related to crime. Forensic science not only control the crime but completely provide support in criminal investigation to provide the fair justice in Indian legal system, the forensic science has been used from decades that is from colonial period of British, but it still required implementation as it faces so many problems. The bharatiya sakshya adhiniyam, 2023 and bharatiya nagrik suraksha sanhita, 2023 studies the admissibility and legal use of evidence, the code explains the few of the important forensic methods like dna profiling or testing, comparison of fingerprints, cyber cell, toxicology, ballistic, and digital data and they are supposing to solve the crime case. The studies evaluate not only benefits but the problems faced by forensic science laboratories in all over India that call upon lack of infrastructure, delay in justice, less trained and experienced experts, and the gaps between the procedures. The courts are completely reliable on the forensic science evidence while sessions or trials are happening. India required better forensic laboratories, uniform procedure for forensic investigation, special training organized for lawyers and judges to understand the forensic methods and procedure, and their strongest judicial system reforms to improve the Indian legal system.

ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN INDIA Read More »

DEAL CERTAINTY REVISITED: MAC CLAUSES AND THE SPECIFIC RELIEF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 IN INDIAN M&A

Volume IV Issue III /

DEAL CERTAINTY REVISITED: MAC CLAUSES AND THE SPECIFIC RELIEF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 IN INDIAN M&A 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.v04.300 Indian scholarship on merger and acquisition practice has generally treated Material Adverse Change clauses and the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 as separate conversations: the former a matter of transactional drafting and the latter a matter of general contract remedies. This paper argues that the two are connected in a way the existing literature has not mapped and develops that connection through doctrinal analysis of Indian and, by way of comparison, Delaware authority. Reported Indian jurisprudence directly interpreting Material Adverse Change clauses in private acquisition agreements remains limited. The closest available body of Indian authority arises instead from the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s open-offer jurisprudence, which has consistently read materiality thresholds narrowly, close to a standard of genuine impossibility of performance. Separately, the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 restructured the remedial landscape governing breach of contract by substituting Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and repealing the general judicial discretion previously found in Section 20, while preserving specific statutory conditions under Sections 11(2), 14 and 16. This paper contends that these two developments, read together, have meaningfully strengthened the practical significance of specific performance as a response to a buyer’s attempt to invoke a weak Material Adverse Change clause, without rendering that remedy automatic. The paper is deliberately precise about the limits of this claim, noting that the Supreme Court’s treatment of retrospectivity has moved beyond the earlier uncertainty in Sughar Singh and Haridasan: a three-judge Bench in Katta Sujatha Reddy held the 2018 amendment prospective from 1 October 2018, but that judgment was later recalled in review, leaving the doctrinal position more procedurally complex than a simple ‘resolved’ or ‘unresolved’ formulation permits. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for drafting practice and identifies the interaction between these two bodies of law as an area meriting further doctrinal attention.

DEAL CERTAINTY REVISITED: MAC CLAUSES AND THE SPECIFIC RELIEF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 IN INDIAN M&A Read More »

RE-EVALUATING THE MANDATORY THREE-YEAR BAR PRACTICE RULE FOR LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICE IN INDIA: A SOCIO-LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS

Volume IV Issue III /

RE-EVALUATING THE MANDATORY THREE-YEAR BAR PRACTICE RULE FOR LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICE IN INDIA: A SOCIO-LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS Madhur Kukreja, Advocate, District Court Karnal (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.299 In May 2025, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association v. Union of India restored the mandatory requirement of three years of active practice at the Bar (or judicial clerkship) as an essential prerequisite for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) competitive examinations. This decision overturned the long-standing 2002 precedent (AIJA II) that had permitted fresh law graduates to directly enter the subordinate judiciary. This research paper presents a comprehensive socio-legal and policy analysis of the three-year practice rule, evaluating its constitutional validity, institutional efficiency, and socio-economic ramifications. On one hand, institutional proponents argue that prior trial court practice develops crucial procedural instincts, judicial demeanor, and trial management skills under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) that academic education alone cannot impart. On the other hand, the paper demonstrates how the rule acts as a severe structural barrier within India’s unorganized and largely uncompensated junior legal profession. Using an intersectional analytical framework, this study highlights the disproportionate burden the mandate places on female candidates threatening to reverse two decades of progress in gender representation by conflicting with societal and biological timelines as well as first-generation lawyers, economically weaker sections, and aspirants from marginalized backgrounds who lack the financial “waiting power” to sustain unremunerated practice. Finally, drawing on comparative international models, such as the German Referendariat system and the Indian Administrative Service (LBSNAA) institutional training framework, the paper proposes alternative policy solutions. It argues for a balanced approach that pairs open-entry examinations with stipend-supported pre-service judicial apprenticeships and paid clerkship equivalencies, thereby safeguarding judicial competence without compromising demographic diversity and substantive equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

RE-EVALUATING THE MANDATORY THREE-YEAR BAR PRACTICE RULE FOR LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICE IN INDIA: A SOCIO-LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS Read More »

THE MICRO-MONOPOLY BLINDSPOT: DECENTRALIZING INDIAN ANTITRUST LAW

Volume IV Issue III /

THE MICRO-MONOPOLY BLINDSPOT: DECENTRALIZING INDIAN ANTITRUST LAW Jaiverdhan Singh, LLB(Hons.); 3rd Year; Amity Law School, Noida (India) Aditi Maheshwari, LLB(Hons.); 3rd Year; Amity Law School, Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.298 As India marches toward its vision of a Viksit Bharat by 2047, the state has increasingly relied on grassroots entrepreneurship and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) as the primary engines for national economic growth. However, this intended pipeline of scaling businesses is currently served at the district level. This article highlights the unrecognized threat of “micro-monopolies”, entrenched local gatekeepers who weaponize anti-competitive practices such as supply chain boycotts, predatory pricing, and extortionate association fees to choke out new entrants in their infancy. The Competition Act, 2002, while effective at a national level, inadvertently shields these district cartels due to three major statutory and institutional blindspots: the macro-tendency of determining Relevant Geographical Markets (RGM), the insurmountable evidentiary burden of proving an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) for small entities, and the profound institutional centralization of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). To dismantle these regional gatekeepers, this article proposes three strategic reforms: formulating proactive “Micro-RGM” guidelines, establishing an “Incubator Safe Harbor” that lowers the burden of proof for startups, and decentralizing enforcement by empowering District Industrial Centres (DICs) as nodal reporting agents. Ultimately, addressing this micro-monopoly blindspot is not merely a localized regulatory correction; it is a macroeconomic necessity. By protecting grassroots entrants, the state can clear the runway for a continuous pipeline of first-generation wealth creators, generating the intense upward market pressure required to cure multi-generational “promoter fatigue” and secure India’s next wave of dynamic corporate leadership.

THE MICRO-MONOPOLY BLINDSPOT: DECENTRALIZING INDIAN ANTITRUST LAW Read More »