LIJDLR

Volume IV Issue III

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 »

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 »