Search Publications

A recurring problem in Indian constitutional adjudication is constitutional silence. There are limits to what can be written into a written constitution: a rule may not be expressed in the Constitution but may nevertheless be determined by the courts, while the consequences of gov-ernmental inactivity may alter the distribution of constitutional power. This Article looks at the five ways in which the Supreme Court of India has dealt with constitutional silence: structural implication, rights-protective gap-filling, institutional design, statutory interpretation and re-medial innovation. It examines the landmark decisions and the Supreme Court jurisprudence of 2025 and 2026 on the topics of gubernatorial assent, judicial service, judicial removal pro-cedure, end-of-life decision-making and legislative limits using a doctrinal and analytical method. The analysis reveals that there is more than a single form of constitutional silence—deliberate openness, textual incompleteness, legislative failure and failure of implementation require different approaches by courts. Judge-made interpretations are best justified when they have roots in the text or structure of the constitution, when they are essential to avoid the frus-tration of another constitutional safeguard, when they are proportionate in remedial form or structure, when they are temporary in nature if legislation is available to fill the gap, and when they are respectful of functions delegated to other constitutional actors. The Article suggests that there should be a six-part Constitutional Harmony Test which includes silence identifica-tion, constitutional anchoring, necessity, remedial proportionality, temporal restraint and non-substitution. The cases cited recently show a growing gap between 'compelling' action, and substituting the result by judicial act, which provides a principled justification for the balance between effective judicial review, separation of powers and democratic responsibility.

Major investors like pension funds, mutual funds, and insurance companies now own most of the shares in big companies. To get these investors to keep a close eye on how companies are run, something called stewardship codes was created. The problem is, these codes are not really enforceable. This article looks at how different countries - like the UK, Japan, the EU, India, and the US - regulate stewardship. It checks if simply asking companies to "comply or explain" or "apply and explain" is enough to hold them accountable, even if there are no legal consequences. The article says that just having voluntary or mandatory rules is not enough. Instead, it suggests a mixed approach. This would mean that companies have to follow basic rules that can be checked by independent auditors, especially when it comes to conflicts of interest and how they vote on important issues. At the same time, companies would still have some freedom to decide how they want to handle other aspects of stewardship.

The doctrine of stare decisis is an important principle followed by the Indian Judiciary. It leads to certainty, consistency and stability. It is based on the principle that the courts must decide cases according to past judicial decisions. However, it does enable development of law. This research paper looks into the meaning behind the doctrine, its basis in the Constitution and how it works in practice with a focus on Article 141 of the Constitution of India that states that the Supreme Court has created a binding law for all courts in India. One can get to know that how judicial precedents provide discipline, consistency and equality in front of law. This research paper will make people to again look at their previous knowledge and thoughts, departed from and overturned with reference to relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court. It also gets to how stability can be provided without prevention of development of law. This research paper shows that following precedent is an important part in providing public confidence and rule of law, there should be some flexibility. The ability of one to go to the back at previous decisions makes the courts to correct mistakes and apply legal principles to present situations. Now in conclusion, that having a balance in between the two terms which are consistency and flexibility is necessary to make sure that justice is administered effectively and the development of law in India. Keywords: Stare Decisis, Judicial Precedent, Article 141, Supreme Court of India, Judicial Discipline, Legal Certainty, Overruling, Administration of Just

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is India's oldest unfinished constitutional promise and, since 2024, a live legal experiment. This paper examines how a common civil code reshapes family law (marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, guardianship and cohabitation) in a country whose personal laws grew out of religion, custom and colonial administration. It argues that a code should be judged by one test above all: does it enlarge the dignity, safety and freedom of the people who live inside families, especially women, children and minorities? Uniformity is a means, and human flourishing is the end. On that test the early record is mixed. Equal inheritance, the end of the legal category of the "illegitimate" child, and simple online registration answer real suffering. Compulsory registration of live-in couples, thin public consultation, and the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes and queer couples raise hard questions about privacy, equality and trust. The paper closes with six recommendations for lawmakers and courts.

This paper considers the debate over the alleged misuse of matrimonial laws in India, with particular attention to the offence of cruelty by a husband or his relatives. The offence was originally contained in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is now covered by sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The paper identifies three different concerns that are often discussed together: complaints that are knowingly false, complaints that make broad allegations against several family members without giving specific details, and the use of criminal proceedings to put pressure on the other spouse during a marital dispute. Using a doctrinal and socio-legal approach, and examining legislation, Supreme Court decisions, committee reports and available crime and health-survey data, the paper argues that procedural safeguards are necessary. However, the available evidence does not justify removing or weakening the protection provided by the law. Better enforcement of arrest safeguards, careful examination of vague allegations, court-supervised settlements and improved official data offer a more balanced approach.

A court judgment involves more than just picking a winner since the reasons behind it matter quite a bit. Judges go over the facts first and then check how the law fits but things get tricky when the rules are not clear or when two ideas seem to pull in different directions. The paper looks at how these issues get handled and what makes the final call seem justified under the law. It seems the focus stays on why judicial reasoning counts and where judges pull their ideas from when working through a case. Some of the main thinkers mentioned are Hart and Dworkin along with Cardozo and Holmes though the way their views connect to actual decisions is not always spelled out right away. Types of reasoning come up too like using deduction or drawing from similar past situations and sticking to core principles. Precedents play a big part here but there is a split between the key legal point that decides the outcome and the extra remarks that do not really drive it. The approach used is mostly doctrinal with some analysis of constitutions court rulings and other writings. Three big cases get looked at to see how these ideas play out in practice. Kesavananda Bharati and the others show judges working through tough questions yet the details on exactly how they balanced everything stay a little loose in places. I think maybe the part about discretion being limited by law gets repeated without much new added each time. Judgments require more than just applying rules since interpretation and weighing old principles always come into it. Discretion has to stay connected to the law itself otherwise it risks feeling too open. This matters for keeping things consistent across cases and for people trusting the system though not every angle gets fully tied together by the end.  

In recent years, environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards have taken on a level of importance that the original designers of the international trade and investment system did not anticipate. Most of the current frameworks were built with the goals of market access and investor protection at the forefront, leaving states with limited clarity on how far they may regulate for sustainability without breaching international commitments. As governments now push forward with climate legislation, mandatory human rights due diligence and broader supply chain oversight, friction with long standing treaty obligations is becoming more visible. This article explores how these tensions emerge and asks whether existing legal structures are capable of adapting to the demands of ESG driven regulation. By examining WTO case law, recent treaty drafting practices and decisions from investor State disputes, the article finds that the legal system already contains some tools that can support sustainability objectives though they are unevenly applied and often subject to narrow interpretation. Newer treaties show an increasing willingness to incorporate ESG language directly into binding obligations, signalling an ongoing shift from voluntary corporate social responsibility to more enforceable standards. Despite this development, the lack of common approaches across trade and investment regimes creates risks of fragmentation and uneven implementation, especially for developing countries with limited regulatory capacity. The article argues that without clearer interpretive guidance and more deliberate treaty design, conflicts between economic rules and sustainability goals will continue to arise. It concludes that integrating ESG considerations into international economic law is both necessary and achievable, but it requires reforms that align legal obligations with the broader global movement toward responsible and sustainable economic activity.

Custodial violence continues to be a serious human rights concern within the criminal justice system and poses a direct challenge to the rule of law and constitutional governance. It refers to physical, mental, or emotional harm inflicted by law-enforcement personnel during arrest, interrogation, or detention. Despite the existence of legal safeguards and constitutional protections, cases of custodial torture and deaths in custody continue to occur, highlighting a clear gap between legal provisions and their practical enforcement. This study examines the nature, causes, and consequences of custodial violence in India, with particular emphasis on the issue of police accountability. The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights such as the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention under Articles 22(1) and 22(2). However, factors such as misuse of authority, inadequate training, pressure to secure speedy confessions, and weak supervisory mechanisms often result in abuse of power by police officials. The judiciary has played a significant role in addressing custodial violence through landmark judgments. A notable example is D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and abuse. Despite such judicial interventions, the absence of a comprehensive anti-torture legislation and poor implementation of existing safeguards continue to weaken accountability mechanisms. Departmental inquiries, which are commonly relied upon, often lack transparency and independence, allowing erring officials to escape responsibility. Police accountability is a vital element of democratic policing. Ensuring accountability helps maintain lawful and ethical conduct while strengthening public trust in law-enforcement institutions. Measures such as independent oversight bodies, mandatory CCTV surveillance in police stations, legal reforms, and regular sensitisation of police personnel are essential to prevent custodial abuse. In conclusion, custodial violence not only violates individual rights but also erodes public confidence in the justice system, making strong accountability mechanisms indispensable for upholding constitutional values of justice and liberty.

Artificial intelligence has transformed the evidentiary assumption that photographs, videos and voice recordings provide comparatively objective representations of reality. Deepfakes - synthetic or materially manipulated audio-visual content created through artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques can convincingly attribute words, conduct and events to individuals who never spoke, acted or appeared as represented. Their emergence therefore creates a dual evidentiary danger: fabricated media may be accepted as genuine, while authentic recordings may be dismissed through an allegation that they are AI-generated, a phenomenon often described as the “liar’s dividend.” The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which came into force on 1 July 2024, modernises Indian evidence law by expressly recognising electronic and digital records, expanding the conception of primary evidence and establishing a detailed framework under Section 63 for computer outputs. However, a crucial distinction remains between admissibility, integrity and authenticity. A Section 63 certificate or cryptographic hash may demonstrate the manner in which a digital file was produced and whether the submitted copy remained unchanged, but neither necessarily proves that the depicted event actually occurred or that the voice, face or conduct represented in the file belongs to the apparent individual. This paper examines the treatment of deepfake evidence through Sections 2, 39, 57, 61 - 63, 86 and related provisions of the BSA, traces the judicial evolution of electronic evidence authentication, and analyses recent Indian developments concerning synthetic media, personality rights and AI-generated content. Particular attention is given to the Information Technology Amendment Rules introduced in February 2026, which establish duties concerning synthetically generated information, labelling and provenance. The paper argues that India requires a provenance-oriented and technologically neutral evidentiary framework combining chain of custody, native-file preservation, metadata analysis, cryptographic verification, forensic expertise, platform records and independent corroboration. Such an approach can preserve the probative potential of digital evidence without permitting either technological deception or unsupported allegations of manipulation to undermine the administration of justice.

The right to freedom of speech and expression is one of the essential pillar’s of democracy. It is enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution. But this right is not absolute in nature is has reasonable restriction on it under article 19(2) of the Indian constitution. This right gives us the right to convey our ideas, beliefs, information in the society, but the digital age and modernization has enhanced the scope of right to freedom of speech and expression. The advent of technology and digital platforms has brought several complex issues that put this right to freedom and expression to the test. The issues like spread of fake and misinformation hate speech, deep fakes, government control over digital content. The role of digital platform and internet service providers has raised a critical issue about the regulation and protection of freedom of speech in the digital world. This has raised a question of law and ethics about, “how that delicate balance has to maintain while protecting freedom of expression while preventing the potential harm in the digital world. This paper will discuss the concept of freedom of speech and expression in digital age with reference to constitutional framework and evolution of online speech. It also examines the legal and policy challenges associated with regulation of digital speech in India. It also explores the implication of the growing role of private tech platforms such as face book; twitter etc. in the content and speech moderation, about the transparency and due process. This paper also gives a comparative analysis of regulation social media speech between India, US and European Union. The research basically highlight the conflicts between digital platform and state regulation, the need for a comprehensive legal framework that safeguards our fundamental right to speech and expression while addressing the risk of unregulated online communication. The role of private platforms in governing the online speech and the legal framework of India in regulating online speech and various judicial decisions. In the era of rapid digitization, which enhanced the scope of this freedom of speech one should maintain a delicate balance while protecting the freedom of speech and expression, that is should not lead to potential harms.