Search Publications

[1] Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, 625–27 (India).[2] Fed'n of All India Customs & Cent. Excise Stenographers (Recognized) v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91, 101–07 (India).[3] Code on Wages, No. 29 of 2019, §§ 3–4 (India).[4] Fed'n of All India Customs & Cent. Excise Stenographers, (1988) 3 SCC 91.[5] Code on Wages, 2019, § 2(v).[6] Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa, (1987) 2 SCC 469, 473–78 (India).[7] Equal Remuneration Ordinance, 1975 (India).[8] Mackinnon Mackenzie, (1987) 2 SCC 469.[9] Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, The Code on Wages, 2019.[10] INDIA CONST. art. 14.[11] Randhir Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 618.[12] Id.[13] Id. at 625–27.[14] Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637.[15] Mackinnon Mackenzie, (1987) 2 SCC 469.[16] Fed'n of All India Customs & Cent. Excise Stenographers, (1988) 3 SCC 91.[17] State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, 182–91 (India).[18] Mackinnon Mackenzie, (1987) 2 SCC 469.[19] Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, The Code on Wages, 2019.[20] Code on Wages, 2019, § 3.[21] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Wage Code (July 25, 2022).[22] Mackinnon Mackenzie, (1987) 2 SCC 469.[23] International Labour Organization, Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), arts. 1–4.[24] International Labour Organization, Ratifications for India, NORMLEX.[25] State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148[26] Randhir Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 618.[27] ILO Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), art. 3.

[1]International legal framework: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 5; International Labor Organization, EmployerMigrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging Trends in the GCC (2023).[2]International Labour Organization, Employer–Migrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging Trends in the GCC, Regional Office for Arab States (2023); M. Ruhs, The Price of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration (Princeton University Press 2013).[3]Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, art. 5(a), (e).[4]The five-pillar matrix is the analytical frameworkproposed by the author forthiscomparative study; see also Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 5, on consular functions.[5]The Emigration Act, 1983, No. 31 of 1983 (India); Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment Act, No. 21 of 1985, as amended.[6]K. Thankamani v. Ministry of External Affairs, W.P.(C) No. 18234 of 2012 (Kerala High Court), as cited in the paper’s references. The case description here follows the supplied manuscript.[7]Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v. The Secretary to Government of India & Others, W.P. (MD) No. 12920 of 2021 (Madras High Court), as cited in the paper’s references. The case description here follows the supplied manuscript.[8]Amnesty International, “Saudi Arabia: Dozens of Sri Lankan Women Arbitrarily Detained for Months in Cruel Conditions” (Apr. 2021).[9]Republic Act No. 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Philippines), as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 (2010).[10]The proposed service timelines and oversight mechanisms are recommendations advanced by the author, rather than existing statutory requirements.[11]These reform measures are proposed institutional changes for consideration; they should not be read as adescription of the law currently in force.[12]Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 5; International Labour Organization, Employer–Migrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging Trends in the GCC (2023).[13]International Court of Justice, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 12; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 (Oct. 1, 1999).[14]The works listed in the References and Doctrinal Sources section are the manuscript’s principal authorities. Verify all case citations, dates, and empirical figures against the original sources before submission.

*3rd Year BLS L.L.B student at University of Mumbai (Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai)[1] Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited and Ors, MANU/SC/0228/2020 (India).[2] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law: (New York: United Nations, 2005). available from  https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/05-80722_Ebook.pdf  at pg.141 ¶170.[3] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,  2016, No. 31, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).[4] Sec. 45(2), The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (India). See also, Pandurang v. Vishwanath, AIR 1939 Nag 20 (India).[5] Sec. 25(1), The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (India). See also Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. (2019) 8 MLJ 524. (India).[6] Reg.35A, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. (India).[7] Sec. 47, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (India).[8] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, Feb. 2020.[9] Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited and Ors, MANU/SC/0228/2020 (India).¶29.1[10] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law: (New York: United Nations, 2005). available from  https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/05-80722_Ebook.pdf  pg.141 ¶170.[11] Ashish Makhija, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India (1st ed.).[12] Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited and Ors, MANU/SC/0228/2020 (India).[13] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law: (New York: United Nations, 2005). available from https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/05-80722_Ebook.pdf ¶152 pg.136.[14] The Interim Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee, Feb. 2015.[15] Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited and Ors, MANU/SC/0228/2020 (India).¶29.3

[1] Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. VII (4 Nov. 1948) (speech of Dr B.R. Ambedkar).[2] Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549[3] Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831[4] PRS Legislative Research, Vital Stats: Functioning of the 17th Lok Sabha (2024)[5] Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867)[6] India Const. arts. 75, cl. 3; 85; 105; 118; 164, cl. 2; 194.[7] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1.[8] PRS Legislative Research, supra note 4.[9] Rajya Sabha Debates, 20 Sept. 2020.[10] Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha records, Monsoon Session 2020.[11] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, rr. 56, 193, 197.[12] PRS Legislative Research, supra note 4.[13] Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1[14] Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1[15] Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 1[16] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar), (2019) 1 SCC 1; see also Aadhaar (Targeted De-livery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, No. 18, Acts of Par-liament, 2016 (India).[17] Rojer Mathew v. South India Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1.[18] Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651.[19] Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 1[20] Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 1.[21] Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha records and bulletins, Monsoon Session 2020 and Winter Session 2023.[22] Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184.[23] R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister, [2019] UKSC 41.[24] Parliament Act 1911, 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 13, s. 1 (U.K.)[25] Economic Freedom Fighters v. Speaker of the National Assembly, 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) (S. Afr.

[1] John Palfrey & Urs Gasser, Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems chs. 1–2 (2012).[2] Id.[3] Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972).[4] 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).[5] Brice Cooke et al., Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes: Preventing Failures to Appear in Court (ideas42 & Univ. of Chi. Crime Lab 2018).[6] Nat’l Crime Recs. Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Gov’t of India, Prison Statistics India 2022 (2023); Nat’l Crime Recs. Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Gov’t of India, Prison Statistics India 2024 (2026).[7] Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Sec’y, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 81 (India); see also India Const. art. 21.[8] Press Info. Bureau, Gov’t of India, Interoperable Criminal Justice System: Making Information Sharing in Judicial System Seamless (June 23, 2022) (MHA factsheet).[9] Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 4–5 (1995).[10] Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 137–38 (2009).[11] Evans, 514 U.S. at 14–16.[12] Herring, 555 U.S. at 144, 146–48.[13] Becki R. Goggins & Dennis A. DeBacco, Bureau of Just. Stat., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 305602, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2020 (2022).[14] Leonardo Antenangeli & Matthew R. Durose, Bureau of Just. Stat., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 256094, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008–2018) (2021).[15] Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (2005).[16] NIEM’s History, Nat’l Info. Exchange Model, https://niem.gov/node/13 (last visited Oct. 15, 2026).[17] Press Release, Ministry of Justice & HM Cts. & Tribunals Serv., Every Criminal Court Now Connected to Single Data System for the First Time (Aug. 3, 2023), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/every-criminal-court-now-connected-to-single-data-system-for-the-first-time.[18] Comm. of Pub. Accts., Progress on the Courts and Tribunals Reform Programme, 2022–23, HC 1002, at 5–6 (UK).[19] Press Info. Bureau, supra note 8.[20] Id.[21] Comm. of Pub. Accts., supra note 18, at 5–6.[22] 28 C.F.R. § 20.21 (2025); 28 C.F.R. § 23.20 (2025).[23] Sarah Esther Lageson, Digital Punishment: Privacy, Stigma, and the Harms of Data-Driven Criminal Justice (2020).[24] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).[25] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22 of 2023, §§ 8(1), 8(5), 17(1)(c) (India); see DigitalPersonal Data Protection Rules, 2025, G.S.R. 846(E), r. 1 (Nov. 13, 2025) (India).[26] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).[27] Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).[28] Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement ch. 7 (2017).[29] Fed. Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy, v. 6.1 (June 25, 2026).

[1] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267; Radhika Nair, Refugee Protection in India in the Absence of Specific Legislation: An Overview 3–4 (Soc. & Pol. Rsch. Found., Curated Voices No. 10.21, Oct. 2021).[2] Saurabh Bhattacharjee, India Needs a Refugee Law, Econ. & Pol. Wkly., Mar. 1, 2008, at 71, 74; Manoj Kumar Sinha, Historicising Refugee Protection in India: Legal Framework and Future Possibilities, 29 Int’l J. on Minority & Grp. Rts. 747, 758 (2022).[3] INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21.[4] Citizenship (Amendment) Act, No. 47 of 2019, INDIA CODE (2019); Immigration and Foreigners Act, No. 13 of 2025, INDIA CODE (2025).[5] Sinha, supra note 2, at 756.[6] Brian Gorlick & Sumbul Rizvi Khan, Refugee Protection as Human Rights Protection: International Principles and Practice in India, 16 Refuge 39, 43–44 n.10 (1997) (reproducing the statement of India’s Permanent Representative); Pradip Kumar Das & Tanmoy Roy, Legal Position & Status of Refugees in India: A Critical Analysis, 3 Int’l J. Legal Sci. & Innovation 75, 78–80 (2021) [7] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees art. 1(A)(2), July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.[8] Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa art. I(2), Sept. 10, 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45; Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, conclusion III(3), Nov. 22, 1984; see Bhattacharjee, supra note 2, at 75 n.2 [9] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.[10] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 9, art. 13; Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 22, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3[11] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment art. 3(1), Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; Law Commission Report Summary: Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, PRS Legis. Rsch. (Nov. 29, 2017) [12] Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 14(1), G.A. Res. 217 (III) A (Dec. 10, 1948); Das & Roy, supra note 6, at 77.[13] India Const. arts. 51(c), 253.[14] Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 S.C.C. 534 (India); Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 783 (India)[15] India Const. arts. 14, 19(1)(e), 20–22, 25[16] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India)[17] Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 367 (India)[18] Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 554 (India)[19] State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 615 (India)[20] Nat’l Hum. Rts. Comm’n v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 742 (India)[21] Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India, 1999 Cri. L.J. 919 (Guj.) (India)[22] Zothansangpuii v. State of Manipur, Civil Rule No. 981 of 1989 (Gauhati High Ct., Imphal Bench, Sept. 20, 1989) (India); Bogyi v. Union of India, Civil Rule No. 1847 of 1989 (Gauhati High Ct. Sept. 17, 1989)[23] P. Nedumaran v. Union of India, W.P. Nos. 12298 & 12313 of 1992 (Madras High Ct. 1992) (India); Syed Ata Mohammadi v. Union of India, Crim. W.P. No. 7504 of 1994 (Bombay High Ct.) (India)[24] State v. Chandra Kumar, FIR No. 78/10 (Metro. Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Sept. 20, 2011) (India)[25] Manoj Kumar Sinha, supra note 2, at 759–61; Devki Sejpal, Refugee Crisis in India and the Violation of Human Rights, 4 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Humanities 1268, 1286–87 (2021).[26] Foreigners Act, 1946, No. 31 of 1946, §§ 2(a), 3 (India) (repealed 2025)[27] Immigration and Foreigners Act, No. 13 of 2025 (India); Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025 (last visited Oct. 16, 2026).[28] Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 (India); India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or Continuity of Exclusion?, Citizens for Just. & Peace, https://cjp.org.in/indias-new-immigration-order-2025-consolidation-or-continuity-of-exclusion/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2026).[29] India’s New Immigration Order 2025, supra note 28.[30] Sara Maheshwari & Amritanshu Pushkar, Need for Democratising Refugee Laws in India: A Turn Towards Refugee Protection or the Return to Eurocentrism, 3 HPNLU L.J. 1, 16–17 (2022).[31] Indian Union Muslim League Moves SC Seeking Stay on Citizenship (Amendment) Act Implementation, Scroll.in (Mar. 12, 2024), https://scroll.in/latest/1065082/indian-union-muslim-league-moves-sc-seeking-stay-on-citizenship-amendment-act-implementation[32] Citizenship Amendment Act | Supreme Court Refuses to Stay the CAA Rules; Directs Union to File Responses to Interim Stay Applications, Sup. Ct. Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/citizenship-amendment-act-supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-the-caa-rules-directs-union-to-file-responses-to-interim-stay-applications[33] Sachin Sheoran & Neha Mishra, Refugees in Legal Limbo: The Need for a Comprehensive Refugee Protection Framework in India, 9 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Humanities 2573, 2587–88 (2026)[34] The Rohingya Question Before the Supreme Court of India, The Leaflet, https://theleaflet.in/governance-and-policy/law-and-citizenship/the-rohingya-question-before-the-supreme-court-of-india (last visited Oct. 16, 2026).[35] Radhika Nair, Refugee Protection in India in the Absence of Specific Legislation: An Overview 9–10 (Soc. & Pol. Rsch. Found., Curated Voices No. 10.21, Oct. 2021); Sheoran & Mishra, supra note 33, at 2594.

[1] Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 1–5 (3d ed. 2010).[2] Margaret A. Boden, Artificial Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction 1–18 (Oxford Univ. Press 2018).[3] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 13–25 (2019), https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4386.[4] John McCarthy et al., A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence (1955), reprinted in AI Magazine (2006).[5] Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 16–28 (3d ed. Pearson 2010).[6] Margaret A. Boden, Artificial Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction 29–52 (Oxford Univ. Press 2018).[7] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 19–40 (2019).[8] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, § 2(1)(j) & § 2(1)(ja) (India).[9] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, § 48 & § 53 (India).[10] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Understanding Patents, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications 5–12 (WIPO Publ'n 2020).[11] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 45–70 (2019).[12] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, §§ 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), & 2(1)(ac) (India).[13] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, §§ 48 & 53 (India).[14] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, § 2(1)(j) (India)[15] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, §§ 3 & 4 (India).[16] Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI) 5–17 (2017).[17] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, §§ 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), & 2(1)(ac) (India).[18] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, § 3(k) (India).[19] Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI) 9–20 (2017).[20] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 95–110 (2019).[21] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 27, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299[22] Patent Cooperation Treaty arts. 3–4, June 19, 1970, 1160 U.N.T.S. 231.[23] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 1–18 (2019); World Intellectual Property Organization, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence (2020).[24] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence 45–70 (2019).[25] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, §§ 2(1)(y), 6, & 28 (India).[26] The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, § 3(k) (India).[27] N.S. Gopalakrishnan & T.G. Agitha, Principles of Intellectual Property 145–52 (2d ed., Eastern Book Co. 2014).[28] World Intellectual Property Organization, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence 8–21 (2020).