Author: PRASANNASRI26092001

DELAY IN INVESTIGATION AND ITS IMPACT ON BAIL DECISIONS IN INDIA: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

AUTHOR – AARTI, STUDENT AT AMITY INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

BEST CITATION – AARTI, DELAY IN INVESTIGATION AND ITS IMPACT ON BAIL DECISIONS IN INDIA: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 403-419, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

Criminal investigations in India don’t just lag—they crawl, and the cost is steep. The law promises timely, fair investigations to protect everyone’s rights, but that ideal rarely shows up in practice. The system groans under mountains of paperwork.^[1] Cases linger for years—sometimes entire decades pass—and that’s not a quirk of bureaucracy. Every delay chips away at lives. People accused of crimes spend years in limbo, not knowing their fate. The right to bail, meant as a safeguard, starts to feel like a useless formality.

Prisons grow crowded, mostly with people who haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re stuck, caught between slow-moving investigations and even slower bail hearings.^[2] So pretrial detention, which the law treats as a last resort, quietly becomes punishment by another name. That’s justice turned on its head.

This paper digs into how delay twists the bail process.^[3] It unpacks the rules—like default bail under Section 187(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—and looks at the big ideas behind them. But the roots of delay run deeper. Overstretched cops, clumsy procedures, a culture of finger-pointing with no one held responsible, and the daily crush faced by the poor and marginalized—these drive the system’s slow decay. Delay doesn’t hit everyone equally; it crushes those already on the margins.

Judges have to balance freedom against public safety, but their calls swing wildly. Some use delay to free people on bail; others point to “security” and keep them locked up. Often, it feels like they’re just patching holes while the roof keeps leaking.

One thing’s certain: delay isn’t an accident. It’s everywhere—feeding inequality and shredding people’s faith in justice. Courts are beginning to call out the problem and let delay shape their decisions, but that’s just scratching the surface. What’s needed is bolder—rethinking how the system runs, putting real resources in place, and making people answer for breakdowns. Real reform has waited too long. Until then, bail remains more promise than protection, and the daily struggle for liberty grinds on. The task isn’t tweaking rules at the edges; it’s rebuilding the whole system so it finally lives up to its own promises.

---

[1] National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2022, Ministry of Home Affairs (2023), https://ncrb.gov.in.

[2] PRS Legislative Research, Judicial Pendency in India (2023), https://prsindia.org.

[3] Marc Galanter, Law and society in Modern India, 37 J. Legal Educ. 519 (1987).

CRYPTO ASSETS AND TAXATION IN INDIA: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY

AUTHOR – ANIMESH SRIVASTAVA* & AMBAR SRIVASTAVA**

* STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

** PROFESSOR AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

BEST CITATION – ANIMESH SRIVASTAVA & AMBAR SRIVASTAVA, CRYPTO ASSETS AND TAXATION IN INDIA: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 392-402, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The rapid global rise of crypto assets has challenged traditional financial regulatory frameworks and compelled nations to rethink taxation, compliance, and investor protection. India represents a unique case where the government has not granted legal recognition to cryptocurrencies, yet has imposed one of the world’s strictest tax regimes. Through the Finance Act, 2022, crypto assets were formally defined as Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) under Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, followed by the introduction of Section 115BBH and Section 194S, mandating a flat 30% tax on gains and a 1% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on transfers. This approach reflects the policy stance of “regulation through taxation,” positioning taxation not merely as a revenue tool but as an implicit form of control over crypto usage.

This analytical study examines the taxation mechanism applicable to crypto transactions in India including trading, mining, staking, NFTs, and gifting and evaluates its implications for investors, exchanges, and the broader digital economy. It compares India’s framework with global practices in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union’s recent MiCA regulation. The study highlights key challenges including the absence of dedicated legislation, lack of asset classification, complexity in reporting compliance, and potential capital flight arising from restrictive tax treatment and non-allowability of loss set-offs.

Findings indicate that while taxation has brought structural clarity and monitoring capabilities, the absence of a unified regulatory statute results in legal uncertainty and discourages innovation. The article concludes that India requires a balanced framework that integrates taxation with licensing, investor protection, and regulatory certainty to ensure sustainable development of the crypto ecosystem while preventing illicit use. A hybrid model combining technological facilitation with rational taxation can enable India to position itself competitively in the global digital asset economy.

LEGAL ANALYSIS: HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION VS. LEX SPECIALIS IN SWAPAN DEY V. CCI

AUTHOR – SUPRATIM RAY, STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TRIPURA

BEST CITATION – SUPRATIM RAY, LEGAL ANALYSIS: HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION VS. LEX SPECIALIS IN SWAPAN DEY V. CCI, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 389-391, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Introduction

Intellectual property rights vis-a-vis competition laws have always posed questions of jurisdictional nature before the courts in India. In the case of Competition Commission of India v. Swapan Dey & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 519 of 2026), the question of jurisdiction has been brought up once again to the fore. On 2 February 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of paras 8 to 10 of the NCLAT judgment dated 30 October 2025, in Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India. According to the stay order, the NCLAT was under the misconception while considering that by virtue of the Patents Act, 1970 being a special legislation, it ousted the jurisdiction of the CCI to deal with complaints of abuse of dominance under section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.

“SOFTWARE PATENTABILITY IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 3(K), TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION, AND GLOBAL PATENT REGIMES IN THE ERA OF AI AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING”

AUTHOR – SHREYA MISHRA* & DR. SHOVA DEVI**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – SHREYA MISHRA & DR. SHOVA DEVI, “SOFTWARE PATENTABILITY IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 3(K), TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION, AND GLOBAL PATENT REGIMES IN THE ERA OF AI AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 350-359, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

Software has changed so much over the years, from basic machine code back in the day to all this stuff with AI and cloud computing now, plus things like 5G that make everything faster. It is kind of wild how it has reshaped the whole world, economies and industries and even how people live. In India, this has brought up big questions about patents for software.

The Patents Act from 1970 has this Section 3(k) that says computer programs by themselves cannot be patented. It is meant to stop companies from locking up ideas that everyone should be able to use, protecting the public and keeping tech open. But the problem is, what does per se really mean? There is no clear definition, so judges and patent offices interpret it differently sometimes. That creates uncertainty, I think, for people trying to innovate or start businesses.

This makes it tough for startups especially, because they need some way to protect their ideas without jumping through too many hoops. The legislative idea behind 3(k) was cautious, to avoid monopolies, but in practice it might slow down real progress in software.

Then there are the guidelines from the Indian Patent Office on computer related inventions. They talk about needing a technical contribution, like making hardware work better or speeding up processes somehow. It is not just the code alone, but how it affects the system technically.

Cases like Ferid Allani against the Union of India helped shape this, showing that if there is a real technical effect, it might be patentable. More recent ones with Comviva Technologies build on that, evolving what counts as technical.

Comparing to other places, the US is more open with their Alice test, letting some software patents through if they are not too abstract. Europe has this technical effect idea under their convention, similar but maybe a bit stricter. India though sticks to a tighter line, which could affect how competitive we are globally, with investments and all.

That divergence matters a lot for the tech sector here. It might discourage big R and D efforts.

Now with AI and machine learning coming up strong, it gets even messier. These technologies mix algorithms with real applications, so where do you draw the line? The current rules in India do a good job preventing evergreening, like patenting small tweaks to old stuff, but they might hold back new breakthroughs too.

I am not totally sure, but it feels like the framework needs tweaking to keep up without losing the public interest part.

For recommendations, maybe clarify what per se covers exactly. Add a clear test for technical contribution, make those CRI guidelines stronger legally. Align a bit more with international stuff, but keep our priorities in mind.

A better system would help with certainty, I suppose, and boost innovation. It could draw more investment and help India lead in digital stuff. Though, this part is a bit messy to wrap up neatly.

KEYWOEDS: Software Patentability, Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970, Computer Programs per se, Technical Contribution, Technical Effect, Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights, Comparative Patent Regimes, TRIPS Agreement, High-Performance Computing, 5G Technology, Legal Uncertainty in Patentability, Startups and Innovation Ecosystem, Evergreening of Patents, Public Interest vs Private Rights, Digital Economy and Patent Policy

HOW THE IBC 2026 AMENDMENTS ARE TRANSFORMING INDIA’S INSOLVENCY FRAMEWORK : A   DEEP DIVE INTO FASTER RESOLUTIONS, CREDITOR EMPOWERMENT, AND GLOBAL STANDARDS

AUTHOR – SUPRATIM RAY, STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TRIPURA

BEST CITATION – SUPRATIM RAY, HOW THE IBC 2026 AMENDMENTS ARE TRANSFORMING INDIA’S INSOLVENCY FRAMEWORK : A   DEEP DIVE INTO FASTER RESOLUTIONS, CREDITOR EMPOWERMENT, AND GLOBAL STANDARDS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 384-388, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 marked a revolutionary shift in the country’s approach to handle corporate distress. By replacing fragmented ,debtor friendly system with a time bound, creditor in control mechanism, the IBC sought to maximise asset value, promote entrepreneurship and enhance credit discipline. Since, its rollout, the code has facilitated the resolution of thousand of cases, with cumulative recoveries for financial creditors crossing 4.1 Lakh crore by late 2025.Yet, persistent challenges- including prolonged timelines exceeding the 330 day statutory limit, modest average recovery rates hovering around 31-32%, heavy reliance on liquidation and difficulties in managing complex group structures, or cross border assets- these highlighted the need for further reform.

On 6th April 2026, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act,2016 received Presidential assent ushering what many experts are calling IBC 2.0. Passed by the Parliament after detailed scrutiny with the bill introduced in early 2025 and cleared in April 2026, this comprehensive amendment addresses systemic bottlenecks through stricter timelines, a new hybrid resolution process , enhanced Committee of Creditors (CoC) powers, provisions for group and cross border insolvency, and several other procedural clarifications. The reforms aim to reduce value erosion , boost recovery rates, and align Insolvency regime more closely with global best practices, such as UNCITRAL Model Law.

THE ROLE OF LABOR LAW IN ADDRESSING INCOME INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

AUTHOR – SRIMATHI.A, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW THE TAMILNADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSIY, CHENNAI

BEST CITATION – SRIMATHI.A, THE ROLE OF LABOR LAW IN ADDRESSING INCOME INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 377-383, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

“The Role of Labor Law in Addressing Income Inequality and Social Justice”

Labor law plays a crucial role in addressing income inequality and promoting social justice by regulating the relationship between employers, employees, and the state. In an era marked by widening economic disparities, labour legislation functions as a vital instrument to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and equitable opportunities for all workers. Through mechanisms such as minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, social security provisions, and anti-discrimination regulations, labour law seeks to reduce the imbalance of power between employers and employees.

One of the primary ways labour law addresses income inequality is by establishing wage standards that prevent exploitation and ensure a basic standard of living. Laws governing equal pay and non-discrimination further aim to eliminate wage gaps based on gender, caste, race, or other socio-economic factors. Additionally, labour laws support the formation and functioning of trade unions, enabling workers to collectively negotiate for better wages and working conditions, thereby enhancing their economic position.

Social justice is also advanced through labour law by protecting vulnerable sections of society, including women, children, migrant workers, and informal sector labourers. Legal frameworks such as maternity benefits, workplace safety regulations, and prohibition of child labour contribute to a more inclusive and humane work environment. Furthermore, social security measures like pensions, insurance, and unemployment benefits provide economic stability and reduce poverty.

However, the effectiveness of labour law depends on proper implementation, enforcement, and adaptation to changing economic conditions such as globalization and the rise of the gig economy. Strengthening labour institutions and ensuring compliance remain key challenges. Overall, labour law serves as a foundational tool in bridging economic disparities and fostering a more just and equitable society

Keywords: Labor Law, Income Inequality, Social Justice, Minimum Wage, Collective Bargaining, Trade Unions, Social Security, Workers’ Rights, Equal Pay, Employment Law

RISE OF FEMINISM

AUTHOR – BHOOMI NAGESH RANE, STUDENT AT KES JAYANTILAL H. PATEL LAW COLLEGE KANDIVALI, MUMBAI

BEST CITATION – BHOOMI NAGESH RANE, RISE OF FEMINISM, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 368-376, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The rise of feminism, a global movement advocating social, economic, and political equality of the sexes, evolved over centuries through distinct, often overlapping “waves” targeting patriarchal structures. From 19th-century suffrage to modern digital activism, it has expanded to address intersectional issues, aiming to replace subordinate status with gender equality. Feminism is a global socio-political movement and ideology dedicated to achieving social, economic, and political equality for women, aiming to dismantle patriarchal systems that have historically relegated women to subordinate roles.

SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE GIG ECONOMY: ANALYSING THE INCLUSIVENESS OF INDIA’S LABOUR CODES

AUTHOR – SAKEE.N, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW THE TAMILNADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSIY, CHENNAI

BEST CITATION – SAKEE.N, SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE GIG ECONOMY: ANALYSING THE INCLUSIVENESS OF INDIA’S LABOUR CODES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 360-367, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The rapid growth of the gig economy has fundamentally altered traditional employment relationships, creating new legal challenges in extending social security protections to non-standard workers. Gig and platform workers, engaged through digital intermediaries, often remain outside the scope of conventional labour welfare mechanisms. In India, the introduction of the Code on Social Security, 2020 marks a significant step towards recognising these workers within the formal legal framework.

This study critically examines the inclusiveness of India’s labour codes in providing social security to gig workers, focusing on statutory provisions, contribution mechanisms, and implementation frameworks. It evaluates whether the Code effectively ensures access to benefits such as insurance, pensions, and welfare schemes, or merely offers symbolic recognition without enforceable rights.

Through a doctrinal analysis of legislative provisions and judicial principles relating to labour welfare and right to livelihood, the research identifies key gaps in enforcement, coverage, and accountability. The study concludes that while the Code represents progressive intent, its practical impact remains limited due to structural and administrative challenges, thereby necessitating stronger legal mechanisms to ensure meaningful protection for gig workers.

KEYWORDS

Gig Economy, Social Security, Platform Workers, Labour Codes, Informal Employment, Welfare Schemes, Worker Protection

PROTECTING LABOUR IN CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING: EMPLOYEE RIGHTS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

AUTHOR – SMRITHI ANILKUMAR, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW THE TAMILNADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSIY, CHENNAI

BEST CITATION – SMRITHI ANILKUMAR, PROTECTING LABOUR IN CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING: EMPLOYEE RIGHTS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 337-349, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT:

While corporate restructuring through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) has become a defining characteristic of contemporary economic growth, it also poses important questions about labour rights protection. As important stakeholders in business organisations, employees are frequently the most impacted throughout these changes, dealing with concerns about wages, social security benefits, job security, and continuity of service. With an emphasis on the revolutionary effects of the recently enacted Four Labour Codes, 2025, this study explores the changing legal environment governing employee rights in M&A transactions in India.

The paper examines how the regulatory environment has changed as a result of the consolidation of 29 disparate labor laws into four comprehensive codes, which have improved formalization, increased social security coverage, and standardized compliance procedures. In contrast to countries like the UK, it critically assesses the ongoing lack of a specific statutory framework controlling the transfer of undertakings, leaving employee protection reliant on court interpretation and contractual agreements. The essay delves deeper into important legal topics such as employment continuity, compensation for layoffs, employee classification, labor due diligence, and the interaction between labor and corporate laws.

This study illustrates the conflict between promoting ease of doing business and guaranteeing social justice for employees by looking at statutory requirements, judicial tendencies, and real-world difficulties in M&A transactions. It contends that there are still large gaps in protecting employee rights during corporate restructuring, even though the new labor rules reflect a paradigm change in bringing labor regulation into line with modern economic realities. In order to improve employee involvement, guarantee fair treatment, and establish a thorough framework for labor protection in business transfers, the report ends with reform recommendations.

All things considered, the study adds to the conversation about striking a balance between worker wellbeing and economic efficiency in a business climate that is becoming more and more dynamic.

GENETIC PROFILING IN LIFE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND REGULATORY DISCRETION UNDER IRDAI

AUTHOR – GOURI JYOTHISH B* & Dr. RENU MAHAJAN**

* STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY

** ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT AMITY UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – GOURI JYOTHISH B & Dr. RENU MAHAJAN, GENETIC PROFILING IN LIFE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND REGULATORY DISCRETION UNDER IRDAI, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 329-336, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The increased use of genetic profiling by insurance companies in deciding the risk profile for life insurance policies is indeed a very critical change in the practice of assessing risks. It not only helps improve actuarial efficiency but also has some serious legal and ethical consequences. The lack of regulation of genetic testing in life insurance underwriting in the country is indeed an alarming state of affairs, where there are no legal or policy guidelines set forth by IRDAI. In this paper, the focus would be on the consequences of genetic profiling on constitutional rights of citizens as protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The study will explore whether the use of genetic profiling and subsequent use of this information for assessing risk in life insurance leads to a breach of individual rights of citizens as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In other words, it is essential to understand the extent to which life insurance companies are involved in discriminatory practices such as denial of insurance, higher premiums or exclusion clauses in insurance.

Ultimately, the paper argues for a balanced regulatory approach that restricts the misuse of genetic data while allowing limited, ethical use for underwriting purposes. It recommends stronger data protection measures, clearer regulatory guidelines, and the adoption of a moratorium-based model to ensure fairness, transparency, and protection of individual rights in the evolving insurance landscape.

Keywords: Genetic profiling, life insurance, underwriting, privacy, IRDAI, discrimination, data protection