Search Publications

[1] Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process, Lecture I. Introduction. The method of philosophy, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:14 PM), Journal of Law, v1n2

[2] Joel K. Goldstein, The Nature of the Judicial Process: The Enduring Significance of a Legal Classic, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:18 PM), The Nature of the Judicial Process: The Enduring Significance of a Legal Classic (tourolaw.edu)

[3] Mr. Justice S. S. Dhavan, The Indian Judicial System A Historical Survey, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:20 PM) Microsoft Word - TheIndianJudicialSystem_SSDhavan.doc (allahabadhighcourt.in)

[4] Emlin McClain, Dissenting Opinions, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:32 PM), Dissenting Opinions (jstor.org)

[5] Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Role of Dissenting Opinions, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:34 PM), Microsoft Word - Ginsburg_4fmt _Final_ (minnesotalawreview.org)

[6] Daksh Gai, Importance of dissenting judgments, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:36 PM),

[7] Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivkanth Shukla, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1207 (India).

[8] Kritika Singh, The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case, (Apr. 24, 2023, 07:48 PM), The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case (alec.co.in)

[9] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 4161

[10] The Leaflet, ADM Jabalpur: The Case that was but should never have been!, (Apr. 24, 2023, 09:49 PM), ADM Jabalpur: The Case that was but should never have been! – The Leaflet

[11] [Burning issue] Issue over Hijab Ban, (Apr. 24, 2023, 09:51 PM), [Burning issue] Issue over Hijab Ban - Civilsdaily

[12]Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. The State of Bombay, 1962 A.I.R. 853, 1962 S.C.R Supl. (2) 496

[13] The Spirit of the Law Lies in this Dissenting Judgment: Daily Current Affairs, (Apr. 24, 2023, 10:11 PM), The Spirit of the Law Lies in this Dissenting Judgment (dhyeyaias.com)

[1] The Constitution of India, s. 19

[2] Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala & Ors (AIR 1987 SC 748)

[3] Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (AIR 1950 SC 129)

[4] A. K. Gopalan v State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)

[5] The Constitution of India, article 19(1)(b)

[6] The Constitution of India, article 19(1)(c)

[7] The Constitution of India, article 19(1)(d), (e)

[8] The Constitution of India, article 19(1)(g)

[9] The Constitution of India, article 20

[10] Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal

[11] The Constitution of India, article 21

[12] A. K. Gopalan v state of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)

[13] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

[14] Kharak Singh v State of UP (AIR 1963 SC 1295)

[15] The Constitution of India, article 21A

[16] Mohini Jain (Miss) v State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858)

[17] Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 )

[18] The constitution of India, article 22

[19] Joginder Kumar v State of UP (AIR 1994 SC 1349)

[20] D. K. Basu v State of W.B (AIR 1997 SC 610)

1 Sumanjeet, The state of e-commerce laws in India : a review of Information Technology Act, 52 Int. J. Law Manag. 265–282 (2010).

2 Dave Chaffey, E-Business and E-Commerce Management: Strategy, Implementation and Practice (5 ed. 2013)

4 Sheen Kaul, 'History and Development of Consumer Protection Laws in India' (Legal Bites - Law And Beyond, 19 June 2020) accessed 21 June 2021

5 :https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/how-jamtara-scamsters-pocketed-rs-1-5-lakh-everyday-through-credit-card-frauds/articleshow/103692692.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

6 National Association Of Software Communication (NASSCOM) v. Ajay Sood and Others, 119 (2005) DLT 596

8sec43 IT ACT 2000. Penalty for damage to computer, computer system, etc

9 sec65 IT ACT 2000. Tampering with computer source documents.

10 sec66 IT ACT 2000. Hacking with computer system.

11 sec 66 C IT ACT 2000 cheating by impersonation

12  section 66D IT ACT 2000, violation of bodily privacy

13 Sec 415  IPC1860 cheating

14 Sec 416  IPC1860 Cheating by Personation

15 Sec 417  IPC1860  Punishment for Cheating

16 Sec 418  IPC1860 Punishment for Cheating

17 Sec 420 IPC1860 Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect

[1] Editorial, “Extrajudicial Executions: The Supreme Court has failed the citizen on encounter killings” (2015) Economic and Political Weekly, 50(15), 7–8 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/24481873 > accessed 8 January 2024

[2] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 100

[3] National Human Rights Commission, Manual on Human Rights for Police Officers (December 2011)

[4] Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72

[5] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another (1997) 3 SCC 433

[6] High Commissioner for Human Rights/ Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights and Law Enforcement: A Manual on Human Rights Training for the Police, Professional Training Series 5, United Nations: New York and Geneva, 1997, p88

[7] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976, Article 6

[8] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 3

[9] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461

[10] The Constitution of India 1950, Article 21

[11] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism, Fact Sheet No. 32, p. 8

[12] National Human Rights Commission, Manual on Human Rights for Police Officers (December 2011)

[13] Sankar Sen, Human Rights and Inhuman Wrongs (Saujanya Books, 2010)

[14] A/HRC/23/47/Add. 1, “Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”, April 2013

[15] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) AIR SCW 5940

[16] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 174

[17] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 176

[18] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 176(2)

[19] The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, s 176(5)

[20] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 176(4)

[21] United Nations General Assembly ‘Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials’ Res 34/169 (17 December 1979)

[22] Economic and Social Council ‘Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions’ resolution 1989/65 (24 May 1989)

[23] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on the right to the truth, Sixty-second session, UNCHR, 62nd Sess, Item 17 of the provisional agenda, E/CN.4/2006/91.

[24] Indian Penal Code1860, s 96

[25] Indian Penal Code1860, s 97

[26] Indian Penal Code1860, s 99

[27] Indian Penal Code1860, s 100

[28] Indian Penal Code1860, s 102

[29] Bihari Rai v. State of Bihar, (2009) AIR 2009 SC 18

[30] Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat (1980) AIR 1980 SC 660: 1980 Cr LJ 459:

“The principles as to the right of private defence of body are as follows –

1. there is no right of private defence against an act which is not in itself an offence under the Code;
2. the right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from the attempt or threat to commit some offence. Although the offence may not have been committed, it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension;
3. it is defensive and not a punitive or retributive right. Therefore, in no case more harm than is necessary to inflict in defence is permissible;
4. the right extends to killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the crimes enumerated in the six clauses of section 100 of IPC”

[31] V. Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 10 SCC 358:

“Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defence can legitimately be negatived. The court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable.”

[32] Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 290:

“It also appears that he [the appellant] was declared absconder. But merely because a person is a dreaded criminal or a proclaimed offender, he cannot be killed in cold blood. The police must make an effort to arrest such accused. In a given case if a dreaded criminal launches a murderous attack on the police to prevent them from doing their duty, the police may have to retaliate and, in that retaliation, such a criminal may get killed. That could be a case of genuine encounter. But in the facts of this case, we are unable to draw such a conclusion.”

[33] Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr (2012) W.P. (Crl) No. 129/2012

[34] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 46

[35] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1976, s 46(3)

[36] A.V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (first published 1915, Oxford University Press 2013)

[37] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521: AIR 1976 SC 1207

[38] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461

[39] State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192, [40]

[40] State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192

[41]  Constitution of India 1950, article 21

[42] R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256

[1] (Constitution of India) <https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2023/05/2023050195.pdf> accessed on 20 November 2023

[2] Om Prakash v. Emperor 1949 CriLJ 34

[3] (Model code of Conduct - Election Commission of India) accessed 20 November 2023

[4] Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa (2003) 9 SCC 300

[5] R. Y. Prabhoo v. Parbhakar K. Kunte 1996 SCC (1) 130

[6] Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (1996) 3 SCC 665, (2014) 14 SCC 382

[1] Avtar Singh and Prof (Dr) Harpreet Kaur, Introduction to the Law of Torts and Consumer Protection (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 4th edn., 2020).

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 499

[3] Indira Jaising, “It is Time to Get Rid of the Law of Criminal Defamation”, The Wire, May 16, 2016, available at: https://thewire.in/law/it-is-time-to-get-rid-of-the-law-of-criminal-defamation (last visited on Oct. 5, 2023).

[4] Vincent R. Johnson, “Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States” 24 The University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 4 (2016).

[5] Arshdeep Ghuman, “Comparative Analysis of Defamation Laws in England and USA” 5 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) 37 (2018).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bhairav Acharya, “Criminal Defamation and the Supreme Court's Loss of Reputation”, The Wire, May 14, 2016, available at: https://thewire.in/law/criminal-defamation-and-the-supreme-courts-loss-of-reputation (last visited on Oct. 8, 2023).

[8] Durga Das Basu, Law of the Press (Lexis Nexis, 5th edn., 2010).

[1] "Sparrow Test": Canadian legal doctrine assessing indigenous rights' scope, requiring historical existence and justifiable regulation under proportionality analysis.

[1] Dr. J.J.R. Upadhyaya, Environmental Law, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 4th Edition, 2017, p: 90

[2] Gurdeep Singh, Environmental Law, page no: 324,329 (Easteren Book Company, Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2016.

[3] Gurdeep Singh, Environmental Law, page no: 330,350 (Easteren Book Company, Lucknow, 2nd Edition, 2016.

[4] AIR 1996 SC 2715

[5] Report of the World commission on Environment and development, our common future, oxford university Press New Delhi, 1987, p 40.

[6] P255

[7] 1987 SCR (1) 819

[8] AIR 2002 Kant 123

[9] AIR 1980 SC 1622

[10] 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169

[11] 2015

[12] 2020