Author: PRASANNASRI26092001

ANALYSIS OF THE JAYSHRI LAKSHMANRAO PATIL VS. CHIEF MINISTER OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS CASE

AUTHOR – ANIKET NITIN PAYGUDE, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BANGALORE

BEST CITATION – ANIKET NITIN PAYGUDE, ANALYSIS OF THE JAYSHRI LAKSHMANRAO PATIL VS. CHIEF MINISTER OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS CASE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 687-690, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The Jaysharee Patil vs. Chief Minister of Maharashtra case is a landmark decision that offers critical insights into the intersection of constitutional limits, social justice policies, and affirmative action in India. The case revolves around the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which sought to grant reservations to the Maratha community but exceeded the 50% reservation cap mandated by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal Commission) case (1992).

 COPYRIGHT ISSUES FOR AI-GENERATED WORKS

AUTHOR – HARSH JEWEL, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BANGALORE

BEST CITATION – HARSH JEWEL, COPYRIGHT ISSUES FOR AI-GENERATED WORKS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 681-686, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is developing at a rapid pace, which has resulted in the creation of AI-generated works in a variety of creative fields. This has created complex legal issues related to copyright. This abstract looks at the complex problems related to AI-generated material copyright protection. Because AI-generated works are defined by their creation through autonomous algorithms, they raise questions about authorship, originality, and ownership that contradict traditional copyright norms. This abstract discusses the main difficulties in determining the “author” or creator of AI-generated content and evaluating its originality, as well as the intricacies of copyright law in handling the distinctive character of AI-generated products. It also explores case studies and legal precedents that show how difficult it is for legislators and courts to modify conventional copyright laws to allow AI-generated works.Potential remedies, such as amendments to current copyright laws and the creation of attribution and ownership guidelines, are taken into consideration. There is also discussion of ethical issues regarding creating a balance between the rights of AI developers and creators and the advancement of innovation within a controlled framework. The objective of this abstract is to clarify the complex relationship that exists between AI technology and copyright law, highlighting the necessity of a flexible and complex legal framework to deal with the rapidly changing field of AI-generated works.

This abstract addresses major issues and the need for a flexible and complex legal framework to accommodate these developments. It offers a brief overview of the difficulties presented by AI-generated works inside the copyright system.

KEYWORDS:  Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, Authorship, Originality, Ownership, Intellectual Property Rights

WHEN THE MACHINE MANIPULATES: ALGORITHMIC TRADING, MARKET FRAUD, AND THE REGULATORY GAP IN SEBI’S PFUTP FRAMEWORK

AUTHOR – SATHVICK MADHUSHANKAR, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BANGALORE

BEST CITATION – SATHVICK MADHUSHANKAR, WHEN THE MACHINE MANIPULATES: ALGORITHMIC TRADING, MARKET FRAUD, AND THE REGULATORY GAP IN SEBI’S PFUTP FRAMEWORK, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 672-680, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT

Algorithmic and high-frequency trading now account for the majority of transactional activity in Indian equity and derivatives markets. The primary legal instrument for policing this activity, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, was designed around a model of fraud as a deliberate human act susceptible to proof through intent, knowledge, and individual agency. Three structural tensions have emerged that this model cannot accommodate: the difficulty of attributing manipulative intent to an autonomous algorithm; the opacity of black-box trading strategies to regulatory oversight; and the absence of statutory provisions capable of addressing cross-product manipulation in a market where derivatives volume exceeds cash-market volume by an order of magnitude unmatched globally. The July 2025 enforcement action against Jane Street Group, the largest market manipulation proceeding in SEBI’s institutional history, illustrates each of these gaps concretely. Drawing on Indian securities jurisprudence, SEBI’s own recent regulatory instruments, and the comparative frameworks of the European Union and the United States, this article proposes a dedicated AI Market Conduct Regulation: a statutory instrument introducing effect-based liability for algorithmic manipulation, mandatory pre-deployment strategy disclosure, and cross-segment surveillance obligations proportionate to the risks that autonomous trading poses to price discovery and investor protection in Indian capital markets.

Keywords: Algorithmic Trading, Market Manipulation, PFUTP Regulations, SEBI, Jane Street, High-Frequency Trading, AI Regulation, Securities Law

THE BLACK BOX PROBLEM IN AI AND ITS IMPACT ON ATTRIBUTION IN CYBER CONFLICTS: INTERNATIONAL LAW’S RESPONSE TO UNTRACEABLE DECISION-MAKING

AUTHOR – ALLEN BENNY, BBA LLB, SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU

BEST CITATION – ALLEN BENNY, THE BLACK BOX PROBLEM IN AI AND ITS IMPACT ON ATTRIBUTION IN CYBER CONFLICTS: INTERNATIONAL LAW’S RESPONSE TO UNTRACEABLE DECISION-MAKING, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 664-671, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract

The rapid militarization of artificial intelligence in cyber operations highlights a growing concern in international law. The “black box” nature of deep-learning systems means that their autonomous decision-making processes are untraceable, even to their creators. This type of technological opacity undermines attribution, a doctrine that is concerned with proof of intent, control (effective, overall, or in a causal sense), and the law of international responsibility, including the ARSIWA, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, and key case law, including the Nicaragua and Tadić cases. When fully autonomous AI systems behave erratically and unpredictably, the law of international responsibility and international humanitarian law (IHL) are left with critical gaps, flouting the principles of sovereignty, distinction, proportionality, and the law of armed conflict (meaningful human control).

Employing a doctrinal, comparative, and interdisciplinary methodology, this paper analyses how algorithmic opacity disrupts legal attribution in cyber conflicts and evaluates whether Explainable AI (XAI) techniques can restore transparency and traceability. While XAI cannot eliminate the black box entirely, it offers practical audit trails and evidentiary support for Article 36 weapons reviews and post-incident investigations. The findings demonstrate that current international legal instruments remain ill-equipped for non-human agency. The paper concludes that meaningful reform—incorporating a legal duty of explainability, constructive control standards, and institutional oversight mechanisms—is essential to preserve accountability in the age of autonomous cyber warfare.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Black Box Problem, State Responsibility, Cyber Warfare, Attribution, Explainable AI, Constructive Control.

NATIONALITY, SOVEREIGNTY, AND STATELESSNESS: AN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

AUTHOR – NIRMAL ANAND KUMAR, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU

BEST CITATION – NIRMAL ANAND KUMAR, NATIONALITY, SOVEREIGNTY, AND STATELESSNESS: AN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 652-663, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT

This study engages in an exhaustive examination of the notions of nationality, sovereignty, and statelessness under the Indian Constitution, set against the backdrop of the modern-day framework of international law. Nationality is the juridical foundation that ties the individual to the state, providing the gateway for political membership, civil participation, diplomatic protection, and constitutional entitlements. Nationality has traditionally been regarded as an emanation of sovereignty, where the plenary powers of the state determined membership within the political community. The modern-day framework of international law has dramatically changed the traditional approach. Nationality today is at the crossroads of sovereignty, human rights, and constitutional morality.^[1]

In the Indian context, Part II of the Constitution (Articles 5-11) provides the framework for citizenship, supplemented by the Citizenship Act, 1955 (amended in 1986, 2003, and 2019), which embodies the sovereignty-centered approach, prioritizing territorial integrity in the backdrop of Partition migration and the present-day NRC/CAA conundrum in Assam (2019)^[2]. The non-ratification of the 1954 and 1961 Conventions on the Status of Stateless Persons underscores the Indian stance on sovereignty; yet, judicial determinations under Articles 14, 21, and 300A suggest an emerging trend of harmonization with customary international law principles enshrined in UDHR Article 15 and ICCPR Article 24(3).^[3]

The central thesis of the study is that the Indian Constitution provides strong protection for sovereignty; yet, the unregulated use of sovereignty could well precipitate statelessness for Chakma refugees, Sri Lankan Tamils, Rohingya, and NRC-excluded individuals, thus undermining the principle of constitutional morality and erga omnes obligations. The methodological approach of the study, through an examination of the relevant enactments, judicial determinations, and treaty law, reveals discriminatory provisions, the absence of an overarching framework for statelessness, gender issues, and the controversy over the application of jus soli. The study argues for an evolutionary approach that accommodates international norms without compromise, placing India at the forefront of the statelessness debate in the region.

KEYWORDS

 Nationality, Sovereignty, Statelessness, Indian Constitution, Citizenship Act 1955, CAA 2019, NRC Assam International Conventions Article 21, Doctrinal Analysis, Nottebohm Case, Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, PIL.

---

[1] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism 296 (Schocken Books 2d ed. 1958).

[2] Final NRC Assam Publication (Aug. 31, 2019), https://nrcassam.nic.in.

[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 15, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 24(3), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION AS A LEGAL ENTERPRISE: STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS, JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES

AUTHOR – ISA MARIAM JACOB,STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU

BEST CITATION – ISA MARIAM JACOB, FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION AS A LEGAL ENTERPRISE: STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS, JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 642-651, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/BVKC6101

ABSTRACT

How much do local governments have enforceable rights under India’s constitutional framework for fiscal decentralization, and how may judicial and legislative actions turn decentralization from a constitutional goal into a legally binding reality?

Fiscal decentralization has come to be one of the defining motifs of current governance and development debates. By shifting fiscal power from the central to subnational authorities, decentralization holds the potential to enhance delivery efficiency of services, encourage accountability, and deepen democratic engagement. However, the institutional and legal framework that underpins fiscal decentralization is not yet well-explored, especially in the Global South. The doctrinal examination of statutory schemes, constitutional architecture, and case law demonstrates that fiscal decentralization is neither a linear nor a uniform process, but an arena of contest over central power and local self-rule. This paper questions the conceptual bases, evolutionary development, and legislative foundations of fiscal decentralization. It shows that decentralization is not a panacea nor a technocratic tool per se but is deeply rooted in the political economy of state building and the intergovernmental legal design. The core argument set forth here is that without the availability of a strong legal framework to bind revenue assignments, expenditure responsibilities, and intergovernmental transfers to enforceable accountability arrangements, fiscal decentralization becomes a hollow promise. The Indian setting, characterized by constitutional directives but unbalanced statutory execution, offers an important location for exploring how doctrinal definition might convert fiscal decentralization into a political substance from a figural aspiration.

Keywords: Fiscal decentralization, local governance, intergovernmental relations, statutory framework, accountability, rural development, fiscal federalism.

DEFAMATION LAWS OF INDIA: A STUDY OF CYBER DEFAMATION AND LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

AUTHOR – YAJUR JOSHI, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), BENGALURU

BEST CITATION – YAJUR JOSHI, DEFAMATION LAWS OF INDIA: A STUDY OF CYBER DEFAMATION AND LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 635-641, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT :

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of defamation laws in India, examining the shift from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The central theme is the constitutional tension between the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, with a particular focus on the growing challenge of cyber defamation.

The paper argues that the BNS, under Section 356^[1], follows the same definition of criminalizing defamation as the old IPC but follows the contemporary procedural model applicable in the digital environment. Defamation is the act of imputation that is intended to injure an individual’s reputation and is done in the form of oral, written, or visible communication. The BNS maintains the ten established exceptions to defamation from the IPC, which protect expressions made in good faith or for the public good, thereby ensuring a balance with free speech.

A significant portion of the paper is dedicated to The term cyber defamation refers to the posting of defamatory information online, which emphasizes the immediate, boundaryless, and long-lasting consequences of online defamation. The legal approach to cyber defamation is based on the Bhartiya nayaya sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. In the analysis, the focus is on the landmark cases that have set the course of jurisprudence, such as SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India^[2], which upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation. The paper concludes by stating that even though the Bodily? No—BNS, which refers to the legal framework (assuming “BNS” stands for some legal regime), has a strong framework, the test of effectiveness in the real world will depend upon the proactive application of the law and the ability of the judiciary to keep adapting to the changing reality of digital communications and individual dignity in the cyber space.

Keywords: Defamation, Cyber Defamation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Free Speech, Right to Reputation, Indian Law

---

[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 356

[2] SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, (2014) S.B.C. No. 1279/2001 (Del.)

RIGHTS OF GIG WORKERS IN INDIA: EVOLVING LAW, EMERGING PROTECTIONS, AND POLICY PATHWAYS

AUTHOR – SIVDARSH KS, STUDENT (LAW) AT CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – SIVDARSH KS, CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE EMERGING FRAMEWORK UNDER BNS, BNSS AND BSA, INDIANJOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 626-634, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

India’s digital platform economy has expanded rapidly in recent years, transforming the nature of employment across several sectors such as transportation, food delivery, logistics, home services, and freelance digital work. Platforms such as Uber, Ola, Swiggy, and Zomato have created flexible income opportunities for millions of workers who perform services through mobile applications. These workers, commonly referred to as gig workers or platform workers, typically operate outside the traditional employer–employee relationship that forms the foundation of labour law.^[1]

While gig work offers flexibility, it also exposes workers to serious vulnerabilities. Many gig workers lack access to basic labour protections such as minimum wages, social security benefits, health insurance, paid leave, and retirement savings. Their earnings are often unpredictable and dependent on algorithmic systems controlled by digital platforms. ^[2]

Recognising these challenges, policymakers in India have begun to address the legal and regulatory gaps affecting gig workers. The Code on Social Security, 2020 introduced formal legal recognition of gig and platform workers for the first time at the national level. In addition, constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court of India has raised important questions about the labour rights of gig workers and whether they should be treated as unorganised workers entitled to social security protections. Several state governments have also initiated policy experiments, including the Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023 and emerging legislative initiatives in Karnataka.^[3]

This paper examines the evolving legal framework governing gig workers in India. It analyses national labour legislation, state-level regulatory innovations, and administrative initiatives such as the e-Shram portal. The paper also evaluates key challenges including employment classification, social security gaps, algorithmic management, and limited bargaining power. By situating Indian developments within broader global regulatory trends, the paper proposes policy pathways that could strengthen labour protections while preserving the flexibility that characterises gig work.^[4]

Keywords: gig work, platform economy, labour rights, social security, unorganised sector, algorithmic management, India

---

^[1] NITI Aayog, India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy: Perspectives and Recommendations on the Future of Work(Government of India, 2022).

^[2] International Labour Organization, World Employment and Social Outlook 2021: The Role of Digital Labour Platforms in Transforming the World of Work (ILO, Geneva, 2021).

^[3] Supreme Court of India, Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1068 of 2021 (seeking recognition of gig workers as unorganised workers entitled to social security protection).

^[4] Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, e‑Shram Portal (national database for registration of unorganised sector workers).

CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE EMERGING FRAMEWORK UNDER BNS, BNSS AND BSA

AUTHOR – SHIVA A, STUDENT (LAW) AT CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE) UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – SHIVA A, CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE EMERGING FRAMEWORK UNDER BNS, BNSS AND BSA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 616-625, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/UNJV1796

Abstract

Custodial deaths in India are a major problem that indicates the misuse of police powers and the overall system in the country, despite the presence of constitutional provisions and the existence of judicial rules and regulations. The recent amendments in the Indian Criminal Justice System through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA, 2023) provide a ray of hope for the Indian legal system.This report seeks to answer the following questions: Have our reforms really made us safer in terms of deaths in custody? How do our oversight and redress mechanisms actually work? It examines the latest laws, court judgments, institutional reports, and data to reveal what has improved and what still lags behind. While there is more clarity in the laws regarding judicial and magisterial oversight, arrest, remand, and admissibility of evidence, there is still inadequate enforcement, under-reporting of incidents, inconsistent methods in investigations, and delays in holding people to account.On the basis of this research, the paper suggests specific recommendations that could help enhance transparency, strengthen the enforceability of the law, and provide better access to justice to victims and their families. The conclusions drawn from this paper suggest that while the new laws represent progress, the true measure is how well they translate into practice.

Keywords – Custodial Deaths · Police Accountability · Judicial / Magisterial Inquiry · Evidence Admissibility · Torture and Ill-Treatment · Institutional Oversight.

SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS OF CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

AUTHOR – VARSHA DAS, STUDENT AT CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

BEST CITATION – VARSHA DAS, SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS OF CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 603-615, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

Cross-border mergers represent a pivotal strategy for global corporate expansion, enabling companies to access new markets, optimise operations, and achieve synergies amid economic globalisation. These transactions involve the amalgamation of entities from different jurisdictions, governed by a complex interplay of domestic and international laws, but they frequently encounter substantive hurdles rooted in divergent legal systems, regulatory frameworks, and enforcement mechanisms.

In India, the legal architecture for cross-border mergers crystallised with Section 234 of the Companies Act, 2013^[1], supplemented by Rule 25A of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016^[2], and the Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2018^[3]. Inbound mergers, where foreign entities merge into Indian companies, enjoy streamlined approvals via deemed RBI consent and tax exemptions under Sections 47(vi) and (vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961^[4], facilitating capital gains relief and loss carry-forwards. Conversely, outbound mergers, allowing Indian firms to merge into foreign entities from notified jurisdictions (e.g., USA, UK, Singapore, Mauritius), face stringent FEMA compliance, sectoral FDI caps, and the absence of tax neutrality, often triggering capital gains taxation and eroding shareholder value.

---

[1] Companies Act, 2013, § 234, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).

[2] Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, r. 25A.

[3] Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2018.

[4] Income-tax Act, 1961, §§ 47(vi), 47(vii), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).