LIJDLR

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

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 »

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATERNITY LEAVE POLICIES: LEGAL DESIGN, GENDER EQUALITY, AND LABOUR-MARKET IMPLICATIONS

Volume IV Issue III /

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATERNITY LEAVE POLICIES: LEGAL DESIGN, GENDER EQUALITY, AND LABOUR-MARKET IMPLICATIONS Jassica Mehra, 4th year, 7th semester student pursuing BBA LLB at Manav Rachna University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.297 “Imagine a world where a new dads can spend quality time with their newborns without worrying about the work.” A comparative method of study of laws is adopted by various nations across the globe to improve and amend laws. One such area that need to be highlighted is paternity leave. The objective of this paper is to provide the clear understanding of the comparative analysis of paternity leave policies worldwide.  Paternity leaves policies vary significantly across the globe, reflecting diverse cultural, economic, and legislative approaches to parental responsibilities. The paper examines that several nations have implemented legislation regarding paternal leave, including the United Kingdom, Estonia, Sweden, Japan, and Bangladesh. In contrast, countries like Pakistan and Nigeria don’t offer any parental leave for fathers. This study employs a doctrinal research approach to examine the legal framework surrounding paternity leave and its broader legal implications. Using a comparative methodology, it evaluates paternity leave policies through a broad region-based analysis covering Nordic countries, Continental Europe, Anglophone jurisdictions, Asia-Pacific countries, Latin America, and selected developing jurisdictions, while also considering India’s position within the wider comparative framework. However, the research shows that the paternity leave is becoming increasingly important in modern cultures around the world. More than half of all economically developed countries have generous, family-friendly policies in place. For instance, all EU members are required to offer a minimum of 10 days of paid paternity leave.  This paper argues that how does examining paternity leave policies across different countries influence the development of fair labor regulations, support gender balance, and impact economic and social progress. This paper is relevant for identifying best practices and legal implications that could inform different polices made in different countries in regard to paternity leave. The study explores how different policies influence workplace dynamics, gender equality and highlighting the benefits of well-structured leave provisions and the challenges posed by limited or absent policies. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATERNITY LEAVE POLICIES: LEGAL DESIGN, GENDER EQUALITY, AND LABOUR-MARKET IMPLICATIONS Read More »

BEYOND FIXED CATEGORIES: DYNAMIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND THE PROGRESSIVE ANNIHILATION OF CASTE IN INDIA

Volume IV Issue III /

BEYOND FIXED CATEGORIES: DYNAMIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND THE PROGRESSIVE ANNIHILATION OF CASTE IN INDIA Bonigala Ashok Mourya, LLM, DSNLU,Vishakhapatnam, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.296 India has one of the most extensive affirmative-action programmes in the world. Reservation developed as a constitutional response to deeply rooted caste-based exclusion and continuing inequalities in education, employment and social life. Its purpose is based on substantive equality, because treating everyone the same on paper does little when people begin from unequal social positions. Recent evidence shows that caste still affects education, occupation and wealth, while affirmative action has created real opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups. This raises an important question: if affirmative action is meant to create a society where caste matters less to a person’s opportunities, status and treatment, should the policy itself remain permanently fixed? I suggest a concept called Dynamic Affirmative Action. Its basic idea separates caste identity from eligibility for affirmative-action benefits. A person’s caste would not change. An SC remains SC, an ST remains ST, an OBC/BC remains OBC/BC, and an unreserved person remains part of their community. What can change is eligibility for a particular benefit as a person’s economic, educational and social circumstances change. An SC individual who makes substantial progress could gradually move to a lower level of protection or eventually to the open category without losing their SC identity. Similarly, an OBC/BC individual could lose eligibility after sustained progress, while a seriously disadvantaged person from an unreserved community could receive appropriate support without being reclassified. The principle is simple: collective disadvantage should not mean collective immobility. The proposal also recognises concerns about stigma and unfair treatment faced by affirmative-action beneficiaries, while acknowledging that the evidence is not conclusive. This is not a call to abolish reservation. It is a gradual, evidence-based shift towards a system that remains protective but becomes more dynamic, individualised and responsive to changing circumstances, helping affirmative action move from corrective justice towards transformative equality.

BEYOND FIXED CATEGORIES: DYNAMIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND THE PROGRESSIVE ANNIHILATION OF CASTE IN INDIA Read More »

BEYOND THE CORPORATE VEIL: REASSESSING DIRECTOR AND KEY MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE MISCONDUCT IN INDIA

Volume IV Issue III /

BEYOND THE CORPORATE VEIL: REASSESSING DIRECTOR AND KEY MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE MISCONDUCT IN INDIA Harsh Raj, 5th Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.295 Indian company law imposes liability on directors and key managerial personnel through at least four distinct doctrinal routes, each resting on a different theory of culpability and each triggered by a different statute. The Companies Act, 2013 attaches civil and quasi-criminal consequences to the “officer who is in default”, a status that can arise from formal designation almost independently of actual involvement in wrongdoing. The general criminal law, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, instead requires proof of personal mens rea or an express statutory fiction before a director may be arraigned alongside the company. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 imposes a distinct form of statutory vicarious liability on persons who were “in charge of and responsible for” the conduct of business at the material time, while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 fastens personal liability on directors who continued trading with knowledge that insolvency could not reasonably be avoided. This paper argues that the coexistence of these four models, rather than reflecting a considered legislative theory of managerial responsibility, has produced a fragmented and forum-dependent liability regime in which the same director, on materially identical facts, may face entirely different thresholds of culpability depending on which regulator or complainant elects to proceed and under which statute. The paper further argues that the statutory safe harbour available to independent directors under Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, though textually precise, is being narrowed in regulatory and tribunal practice through an expansive treatment of constructive knowledge that risks converting board membership itself into evidence of complicity. Drawing on the doctrinal architecture developed across the Companies Act, the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the general criminal law, the paper proposes a functional and graduated standard of liability keyed to a person’s actual proximity to the impugned decision rather than to formal designation and recommends statutory and procedural reforms to bring India’s fragmented liability regime closer to a coherent theory of corporate governance responsibility.

BEYOND THE CORPORATE VEIL: REASSESSING DIRECTOR AND KEY MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE MISCONDUCT IN INDIA Read More »

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL OWNER REGIME AND THE UNITED KINGDOM’S PERSONS WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL REGISTER

Volume IV Issue III /

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL OWNER REGIME AND THE UNITED KINGDOM’S PERSONS WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL REGISTER Vanshika Jain, Final Year , Student pursuing law (LLB) at Lancaster University Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.294 India’s Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) regime and the United Kingdom’s Persons with Significant Control (PSC) register share a common foundation in the Financial Action Task Force’s standards on beneficial ownership transparency, yet they diverge materially in relation to disclosure thresholds, verification design and enforcement practice. This article undertakes a comparative-doctrinal analysis of the two regimes, using primary legislation, statutory rules, regulatory materials, judicial proceedings and institutional reports to assess how each jurisdiction identifies, records and verifies the natural persons who ultimately own or control corporate vehicles. It examines India’s shift from a 25 per cent disclosure threshold to a 10 per cent SBO threshold under the 2019 amendments, the enforcement implications of the LinkedIn/Nadella proceedings, and the United Kingdom’s historically self-reporting-based PSC register, which is now being strengthened through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and mandatory identity verification at Companies House. The article further identifies a cross-border compliance mismatch created by the interaction between India’s lower SBO threshold and the United Kingdom’s 25 per cent PSC and Register of Overseas Entities framework, particularly where Indian-controlled holding structures are used in relation to UK property. Using the Nirav Modi proceedings as an illustration of the limits of bilateral transparency where ownership chains move through third jurisdictions, the article argues that threshold rules alone cannot produce reliable beneficial ownership transparency. It recommends three connected reforms: closer threshold alignment, independent verification of beneficial ownership filings, and formalised regulator-to-regulator information-sharing mechanisms between India and the United Kingdom.

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL OWNER REGIME AND THE UNITED KINGDOM’S PERSONS WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL REGISTER Read More »

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 »