Search Publications

Indian divorce law asks an odd question of people whose marriages have quietly ended: who was at the fault? Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse who wants divorce must either prove a matrimonial offence or secure the willing cooperation of a partner who may have every reason to withhold it. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, meanwhile, has entered Indian law through the back door. The Supreme Court now dissolves “dead” marriages under Article 142 of the Constitution while the statute stays silent, and Parliament’s most serious attempt at reform lapsed in 2014. This research paper asks whether irretrievable breakdown can and should become a statutory ground for divorce under the Act, and on what conditions. Using a doctrinal method supported by comparative analysis of Canada and the United States (with particular reference to California and New York), drawing exclusively on secondary sources, it examines the statutory scheme, the Law Commission’s reports, the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2010 and 2013, and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. It argues that the ground is viable and overdue, but only if divorce and financial protection are legislated together: a decree should not become final until the court is satisfied about maintenance, residence and the welfare of children. Drawing lessons from Canadian one-year separation under the Divorce Act and United States’ no-fault models (California’s irreconcilable differences and New York’s irretrievable breakdown), the research paper shows that viable reform pairs an objective breakdown test with robust alimony and property safeguards. The research paper proposes a model with a three-year separation threshold, compulsory disclosure of assets, a two-stage decree, a hardship provision that works to secure arrangements instead of blocking dissolution, statutory guidance on matrimonial property, and stronger enforcement of alimony orders.

In this contemporary landscape, it is certain that we all are aware of the culture of thrifting and second-hand markets. But have you ever wondered that the branded scarf you’ve excavated from the large pile of clothes and bought in a substantially cheap price, end up in a thrift store? It is obvious that those are goods were discarded then sold by their owners to the thrift stores but there is more to it, especially when the brands are so concerned about the presentation, quality and distinctness of their trademarked goods. This underscores the continuous relevance of the doctrine of trademark exhaustion, the operation of which facilitates the circulation of genuine goods beyond their initial sale. However, its application demands, that the goods are not altered and are sold in their original condition, which is often uncertain to materialise because frequently the re-entry of such goods in the markets are accompanied by after-market modifications such as refurbishment, repackaging, re-branding and even creative customization particularly where such alterations are complemented by the evolving societal pursuits like globalisation, the goals of sustainable development, prominence of fundamental rights and creative freedom. Hence, by the virtue of the foregoing the courts are presented with a formidable legal challenge to determine the threshold at which such modifications cross into trademark infringement, alongside undertaking a multifaceted exercise to balance the legitimate interest of trademark owners, resellers and especially the consumers.

Maternity benefits form an integral part of labour welfare, reproductive rights and gender equality. Such benefits help safeguard women from the economic and professional drawbacks caused due to the process of pregnancy and childbirth and allow women to remain actively involved in work. In India, maternity benefits are guaranteed by the constitution, statutes and judicial precedents. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 especially the amended version of the Act which came into force in 2017 provides for maternity leaves on payment and provisions regarding adoption mothers, commissioning mothers and childcare facilities. Code on Social Security, 2020 which is a compilation of several social security statutes including those related to maternity benefits. However, despite such developments, several women find it difficult to access maternity benefits, especially in the case of women working in insecure, informal and casual employment. Employer funded benefits may also provide employers with a motive to adopt discriminatory recruitment policies. This paper will discuss the legal framework for providing maternity benefits, examine judicial precedents in this context, suggest reforms and mention problems with implementing maternity benefits.

Waterbodies in India are not only physical resources but also ecological commons that support biodiversity, groundwater recharge, flood control, community livelihoods and environmental rights enshrined in the Constitution . Although constitutional protections, environmental laws, wetland rules and the public trust doctrine recognized by the courts exist, rivers, ponds, lakes, johads, wetlands, seasonal streams, floodplains and groundwater systems are still subject to encroachment, pollution, land conversion and administrative neglect. This paper examines whether the existing legal framework in India is sufficient to safeguard waterbodies from ecological degradation. It adopts doctrinal legal research as its primary methodology, while analytical, policy-based and limited comparative approaches are used to study constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, government reports and environmental governance scholarship. The paper argues that the law is insufficient because of weak enforcement, lack of coordination among various levels of government, and land classification that does not reflect ecological conditions.

Live – in relationships are increasing worldwide. Other countries are legally more comfortable with live – in relationships but India is facing many challenges in accepting live – in relationships. Earlier women in live – in relationships were not getting the protection as well as the status of a wife but the PWDV Act of 2005 provided protection to women who are in relationships ‘in nature of marriage’ based on some conditions. Domestic violence is also seen in live – in relationships nowadays and cases of domestic violence remain unnoticed and unreported due to lack of knowledge of the rights woman have. The Judiciary tries to give the decisions in favour of live – in relationships and due to judicial decision live – in relationships have been legalised in India. This article talks about legality of live - in relationships, protection and rights provided to women in live – in relationships, domestic violence in live – in relationships and judicial decisions in support of live – in relationships.

“Delhi Police told the Supreme Court its facial recognition system flagged 2,873 people with criminal records at protest, assured no action without verification. An Express verification shows at least 25 on that list, facing serious charges, were in jail.” As echoed by The Indian Express on 4 September 2026, this incident highlights the constitutional challenges posed by facial recognition technology and unchecked state surveillance. The increasing use of real-time biometric surveillance in India raises concerns regarding wrongful identification, mass monitoring, and violations of Article 21 of the Constitution. This paper examines India's legal framework in light of the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment and compares it with the European Union's AI Act. It argues that public safety cannot justify unrestricted biometric monitoring and proposes clear statutory rules, judicial authorisation for intrusive surveillance, independent oversight, and effective remedies to protect privacy and individual liberty.

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental safeguard against coercive investigative practices and an essential component of a fair criminal justice system. In India, this protection is expressly guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits compelling an accused person to be a witness against themselves. The enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, represents a significant stage in the restructuring of India’s evidentiary framework. Although the BSA retains important safeguards concerning involuntary confessions and confessions made to police officers, its operation must be examined alongside constitutional guarantees and judicial interpretations of testimonial compulsion. This paper critically examines the relationship between Article 20(3) and the relevant provisions of the BSA, particularly Sections 22 and 23. It analyses the distinction between testimonial evidence and physical evidence, the admissibility of information leading to discovery, and the constitutional implications of modern investigative techniques. Through an examination of landmark judicial decisions, the paper evaluates whether the existing evidentiary framework adequately protects individual autonomy, dignity and procedural fairness. It argues that the effectiveness of the right against self- incrimination depends not merely on statutory exclusions but also on meaningful judicial scrutiny, safeguards against coercion and a constitutionally consistent approach to emerging forms of evidence.

On 27 September 2018, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), together with Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in so far as it related to that offence, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India. The judgment ended an offence that punished only the man who had intercourse with another man’s wife, that spared the wife entirely, and that disappeared if the husband consented. This paper traces the history of the offence, examines the decisions that upheld it for more than sixty years, analyses the reasoning that finally brought it down, and tests the arguments for its retention, including the 2023 recommendation of a Parliamentary Standing Committee that a gender-neutral offence be restored. It then turns to the question that matters most to a student of family law: what is left of adultery once the criminal sanction is gone? The paper argues that decriminalisation was constitutionally sound, that adultery keeps its full significance as a ground for divorce and as a fact relevant to maintenance, custody and proof, and that the unfinished work lies less in the penal code than in matrimonial law, which still leans on fault and offers too little economic protection to a spouse whose marriage has failed.

Social media is now one of the main places where Indians talk politics, argue about public issues and take part in civic life. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects this speech. But the same platforms have also brought misinformation, hate speech, deepfakes, cyberbullying and organised disinformation. To deal with these, the Government relies on wide powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These include taking down content, blocking it, intercepting messages and tracing who sent them. Such powers raise fears of censorship, prior restraint, executive overreach and a chilling effect on speech, and they touch Articles 14, 19 and 21. This paper looks at the constitutional and statutory framework, the leading Supreme Court decisions and recent High Court rulings, and the new problems created by deepfakes, bots, encryption and AI-based content moderation. It combines a doctrinal study of the law with a comparison of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom, and a small public survey. The comparison shows that the European and British models build in transparency, independent oversight and a right of appeal for users, which India's blocking and interception scheme does not. In the survey, 75% of respondents had come across fake news or deepfakes, only 39.6% knew of government rules on social media content, and 75% wanted an independent body to decide what is fake or harmful. The paper concludes that India needs independent checks before content is blocked, openness about blocking orders, clear duties for platforms, user rights to notice and appeal, and a law on AI and deepfakes that respects proportionality. It also argues that responsibility is shared, and that digital literacy is part of the answer.