Right to be forgotten

SEBI & RBI OVERHAUL OF AIF REGULATIONS IN 2025: BALANCING TRANSPARENCY, RISK, AND GROWTH IN INDIA’S FUND ECOSYSTEM Vidushi Dubey, B.A LL.B (Hons.), 5th Year, 10th Semester, Student at Amity Law School, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh Dr. Axita Srivastava, Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.89 The regulatory landscape of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) in India has undergone significant transformation since the enactment of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012. Despite rapid industry growth, challenges persisted in transparency, taxation, and systemic oversight, prompting a comprehensive overhaul by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2025. This paper examines the structural, supervisory, and policy changes introduced through the reforms and analyzes their implications for India’s fund ecosystem. The study highlights five key areas of reform: restructuring of fund categorization to prevent regulatory arbitrage, enhanced disclosure and transparency norms, robust risk-management and investor protection mechanisms, stringent cross-border capital flow regulations, and adoption of digital compliance frameworks. Judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India, alongside global regulatory models such as the EU AIFMD and the U.S. Investment Advisers Act, inform the analysis and establish the comparative dimension of the reforms. The findings suggest that while the overhaul strengthens investor protection, improves systemic resilience, and aligns Indian AIF regulation with international standards, it also raises concerns of compliance burdens, dual regulatory overlaps, and incomplete taxation reforms. The paper concludes with policy recommendations advocating harmonization of SEBI and RBI mandates, uniform tax treatment across fund categories, expansion of technology-driven supervision, and integration of ESG obligations. These reforms are positioned not only to consolidate India’s domestic market but also to enhance its credibility as a global hub for private equity, venture capital, and alternative investments.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN THE SHADOW OF PRIVACY: THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN INDIA, EU, AND USA Jyothi Sharma, LL.M (Pursuing), Lovely Professional University Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.88 “The Internet never forgets” — a characteristic that has evolved into a pressing legal problem when past information continues to shape reputations and public memory. This article offers a comparative doctrinal analysis of the so-called Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) and its tensions with press freedom across three legal traditions: the European Union, India, and the United States. Drawing on leading judicial decisions, statutory texts (notably the GDPR and India’s DPDP Act, 2023), and regulatory practice, the paper examines how each system defines erasure, scopes public-interest exceptions, places obligations on intermediaries, and handles temporal reach and cross‑border enforcement. The EU model provides a robust delisting remedy codified in the GDPR, coupled with journalistic and public‑interest exceptions applied through balancing tests. India’s post‑Puttaswamy jurisprudence recognizes privacy as constitutionally protected and the DPDP Act introduces limited erasure, but no settled RTBF doctrine; Indian courts are developing case‑based remedies focused on anonymization and proportionality. The United States, guided by the First Amendment, resists a European‑style RTBF and confines redress to narrow torts and sectoral statutes. The paper contributes to the literature by proposing a practicable hybrid model: a narrowly scoped statutory erasure right for private individuals, explicit public‑interest carve‑outs for journalism and archives, robust process safeguards (notice, independent review, proportional remedies), and limited temporal rules to preserve historical integrity. These recommendations aim to harmonize privacy and press freedom while minimizing risks of political or commercial abuse.