Search Publications

Cross-border insolvency arises when an insolvent debtor has assets, creditors, business operations or insolvency proceedings connected with more than one jurisdiction. The central legal problem is not merely the existence of multiple proceedings, but the absence of a predictable mechanism for recognition, cooperation, coordination and protection of creditors across borders. India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) initially addressed this problem through Sections 234 and 235, which depend on reciprocal arrangements and letters of request. These provisions do not create a comprehensive recognition-and-cooperation regime comparable to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 1997 (Model Law). This paper examines the architecture of the Model Law and evaluates India’s evolving approach. It analyses the four principal pillars of the Model Law—access, recognition, relief, and cooperation—and the distinction between foreign main and non-main proceedings based on the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) and establishment. It then examines India’s Insolvency Law Committee (ILC) Report of 2018, which proposed a new Part Z broadly based on the Model Law but with Indian modifications, followed by the Cross-Border Insolvency Rules/Regulations Committee (CBIRC) Report of 2020. Particular attention is given to reciprocity, public policy, foreign representatives, concurrent proceedings, court-to-court cooperation and the institutional role of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The paper also studies the practical lessons from Jet Airways, where the NCLAT had to facilitate cooperation between Indian and Dutch insolvency proceedings through a court-directed protocol; Videocon, which exposed the limits of using domestic group-insolvency tools to deal with foreign subsidiaries and foreign assets; and Byju’s, which illustrates the friction created when Indian and United States proceedings and enforcement measures interact without a comprehensive Indian cross-border recognition regime. Comparative analysis of Singapore and the United Kingdom demonstrates how Model Law-based legislation can provide structured recognition and cooperation mechanisms while preserving domestic insolvency priorities. The paper finally examines the legislative developments of 2025–2026. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposed an enabling power to frame cross-border rules. The Lok Sabha Select Committee recommended that the basic tenets of the cross-border framework be codified directly in the Code. Parliament nevertheless enacted Section 240C through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 as a rule-making power. The commencement notification dated 22 May 2026, however, brought only specified provisions into force from 26 May 2026 and did not include the provision inserting Section 240C. Thus, as of 29 September 2026, India has moved closer to a statutory framework but has not yet operationalised a full Model Law-style recognition regime. The paper proposes a calibrated framework: Model Law alignment with Indian safeguards, clear COMI rules, direct access for foreign representatives, automatic and discretionary relief, court cooperation protocols, specialised NCLT capacity, transparent reciprocity rules and legislative rather than purely delegated determination of core policy choices.

Climate change is a crime against our collective future, and it isn’t just an environmental issue. Environmental destruction is often treated as a regulatory offence rather than a serious criminal act, from unchecked industrial pollution to illegal deforestation and corporate negligence. But should it be? Why shouldn’t corporations and governments face criminal liability for actions that devastate entire ecosystems and displace communities if an individual can be prosecuted for harming another person? Whether existing legal frameworks are strong enough to hold the real culprits accountable is what is being questioned by this paper, and it also explores the evolving role of criminal law in tackling environmental crimes. While fines or administrative penalties may be imposed by many laws, for corporations profiting from environmental harm, these often amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. While “ecocide,” which is referred to as widespread, irreversible environmental destruction, has begun to be recognized as a potential crime under international law by the global legal community, its enforcement remains a major challenge. This research examines whether criminal prosecution can be an effective tool in the fight against climate change through real-world case studies and legal analysis. Can international corporations, corporate criminal accountability, and stricter liability provisions serve as deterrents? What lessons can be drawn from jurisdictions that have begun to treat environmental harm as not just a regulatory violation but rather as a criminal offence? The law must evolve to meet the crisis at a time when climate change is already causing irreversible damage. This paper argues that in ensuring that those responsible for climate harm are not just fined but held truly accountable, treating environmental destruction as a crime, on par with human rights violations, could be a turning point.

Indian rape law is built around consent, but the marital rape exception creates a significant gap in that framework. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) identifies circumstances in which sexual penetration amounts to rape, including when it takes place against a woman’s will or without her consent. Exception 2, however, states that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, where she is at least eighteen years old, do not constitute rape. Section 67 addresses non-consensual intercourse by a husband with a wife who is living separately, making it an offence punishable by a substantially lower sentence than rape. Read together, these provisions raise a basic question: if consent is central to the definition of rape, why does a woman’s marital status determine whether her refusal receives legal recognition? Using doctrinal and comparative analysis, this paper examines the relationship between Sections 63 and 67, the constitutional arguments under Articles 14, 15 and 21, and relevant decisions including Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) and the split verdict in RIT Foundation v. Union of India (2022). It argues that the exception rests on an outdated assumption of permanent marital consent and is difficult to reconcile with modern constitutional protections for privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy. The paper recommends removing the exception and aligning Section 67 with a coherent framework for addressing sexual violence within marriage.

The phenomenon of the "feminization of poverty" describes not merely a statistical concentration of income deficits among women, but an entrenched, structural paradigm wherein systemic gender biases, institutional exclusion, and patriarchal socio-cultural frameworks perpetuate multi-dimensional deprivation. In the contemporary Indian socio-economic milieu, despite sustained macro-economic growth and comprehensive constitutional guarantees of equality and affirmative state action under Articles 14, 15, 21 , 38, 39, and 42 of the Constitution of India, women continue to bear a disproportionately severe burden of persistent impoverishment. This multi-layered vulnerability manifests through severe time-poverty driven by uncompensated and unrecognized domestic reproductive labor, systemic exclusion from tangible asset ownership—most acutely agricultural land—labor market segregation within volatile informal and care economies, asymmetric wage differentials, and exacerbated deprivation among female-headed households, rural widows, and marginalized caste and tribal communities. Adopting a robust doctrinal and feminist socio-legal methodology, this study critically interrogates the Indian legislative and institutional matrix governing economic rights. The investigation examines the practical efficacy of statutory enactments including the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA), the Code on Wages, 2019, the Code on Social Security, 2020, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Integrating the Capabilities Approach formulated by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum with Bina Agarwal’s foundational gendered asset framework, this study demonstrates that formal legislative parity fails to translate into substantive distributive justice in the absence of robust tenure security, institutional credit democratization, uncompromised public social infrastructure, and gender-responsive fiscal auditing. The monograph concludes by formulating transformative institutional remedies, statutory reforms, and programmatic imperatives designed to dismantle the structural architectures of gendered destitution, thereby translating constitutional guarantees ofhuman dignity into lived realities for Indian women.

Climate change is one of the most pressing global challenges, affecting human rights, social equality, environmental sustainability, and economic development. Its impacts are not distributed equally among individuals and communities, as gender, socioeconomic status, education, and access to resources significantly influence vulnerability and resilience. Women, particularly those belonging to marginalized and economically disadvantaged communities, often experience disproportionate consequences due to unequal access to land, employment, healthcare, education, and decision-making opportunities. This study critically examines the relationship between climate change and gender justice within the Indian constitutional and legal framework. It explores how climate-induced disasters, environmental degradation, water scarcity, agricultural instability, and displacement intensify existing gender inequalities and increase women's economic, social, and caregiving burdens. The study further analyses the relevance of constitutional principles, including equality, dignity, the right to life, and environmental protection, in addressing gender-based climate vulnerabilities. It evaluates the effectiveness of existing environmental laws, government policies, and institutional mechanisms in promoting gender-responsive climate governance and ensuring equitable access to adaptation resources and climate finance. The research adopts a doctrinal and analytical approach, drawing upon constitutional provisions, judicial decisions, legal principles, policy frameworks, and relevant scholarly literature. It also highlights the importance of women's participation in climate decision-making, gender-sensitive budgeting, effective legal accountability, and inclusive adaptation strategies. The study ultimately emphasizes the need to integrate gender justice into climate policies and legal institutions to ensure substantive equality, environmental sustainability, and the protection of vulnerable communities. It seeks to contribute to a more inclusive and rights-based approach to climate governance in India.

When domestic violence is discussed, legal and social discourse traditionally prioritizes visible physical battery, severe bodily harm, or criminal force. However, for millions of women across diverse socio-economic strata, the most pervasive and paralyzing form of domestic subordination involves no physical violence at all. Economic abuse operates as a systematic, structural mechanism of coercion that strips women of financial autonomy, prevents access to economic resources, and traps them in abusive domestic settings through financial captivity. This research paper presents a comprehensive legal, comparative, and empirical analysis of the scope, statutory interpretation, and judicial application of "economic abuse" under Section 3(iv) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The authors examine how the PWDVA broke away from traditional penal remedies by codifying financial deprivation, control over shared resources, and alienation of stridhan as distinct civil wrongs. By synthesizing landmark Supreme Court rulings including Rajnesh v. Neha, Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, Ganesh v. Sudhanya, and Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha alongside comparative frameworks from the UK, Australia, the US, and South Africa, this paper evaluates the systemic barriers in proving economic abuse. Furthermore, an expanded Four-Tier Judicial Evaluation & Forensic Financial Matrix is introduced to assist Magistrates in evaluating hidden assets, preventing procedural delays, detecting digital economic coercion, and executing monetary reliefs effectively.

Narco-analysis and polygraph examinations are used in Indian criminal investigations as forensic tools to elicit information from suspects, raising significant questions of scientific reliability, evidentiary value, and constitutional protection. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the supreme court of India held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, however the court permitted the use of such test when there is voluntary consent from the person subject to safeguards. This study analyzes the post-Selvi regime by exploring three interconnected questions: the legality of consent acquired in detention settings, the scientific reliability and limitations of the techniques, and the admissibility of facts discovered through information obtained during testing. Adopting a doctrinal approach the paper studies Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the National Human Rights Commission's guidelines, and the transition from Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.It argues that information obtained through compromised or unreliable testing can nonetheless influence the outcome of a trial by way of the discovery exception. Ultimately, the paper advocates for firmer consent safeguards, uniform forensic protocols, independent judicial supervision and well-defined boundaries on the derivative use of test-generated information.

MaintenanCe iS the legal meChaniSm throUgh whiCh a finanCially weaker SpoUSe SeCUreS SUpport dUring and after matrimonial proCeedingS. SeCtionS 24 and 25 of the HindU Marriage ACt, 1955 ("HMA") empower CoUrtS to award interim and permanent maintenanCe bUt SUpply no formUla for qUantUm, leaving the oUtCome to jUdiCial diSCretion. ThiS paper examineS the StatUtory framework of maintenanCe Under the HMA, the rightS of SpoUSeS Under SeCtionS 24 and 25, the faCtorS that determine awardS, and the approaCh of the SUpreme CoUrt of India, with partiCUlar attention to Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). It argUeS that the law iS SoUnd in prinCiple bUt weak in praCtiCe beCaUSe of delay, inConSiStent qUantUm, diffiCUlty of enforCement, oUtdated gendered langUage in SeCtion 25(3) and the abSenCe of a matrimonial property regime. The paper ConClUdeS With reform SUggeStionS aimed at making the remedy timely, tranSparent and gender-neUtral.

Equality, dignity, economic independence, and social justice all depend on property rights. Substantial gender equality in India is largely dependent on the acknowledgment and upholding of women's property rights. In the past, women in India were subject to a number of legal, social, and customary limitations around property ownership, inheritance, succession, and control. Significant disparities still persist in practice even though women's property rights have gradually been strengthened by law reforms and constitutional guaranties. Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution establish the basic basis for equality and nondiscrimination, while Article 21 safeguards life and individual liberty, including autonomy and dignity. By acknowledging females as coparceners in the same way as sons, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956—especially after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005—marked a significant development. A daughter enjoys equal coparcenary rights by birth, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020). A major step toward substantive equality in property ownership is represented by the ruling.