COMPENSATION JURISPRUDENCE IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TORT DOCTRINE FROM NILABATI BEHERA TO THE PRESENT

AUTHOR- SANJAY PAUL DINAKAR, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – SANJAY PAUL DINAKAR,COMPENSATION JURISPRUDENCE IN CUSTODIAL DEATH CASES: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TORT DOCTRINE FROM NILABATI BEHERA TO THE PRESENT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 390-400, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I838

ABSTRACT

Custodial death—the death of a person occurring while under the compulsive control of state detention authority—constitutes one of the gravest violations of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This research paper presents a systematic and critical analysis of the compensation jurisprudence developed by Indian courts in response to custodial deaths, with particular focus on the landmark decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746. The paper examines how the Supreme Court of India has, through a progressive line of constitutional decisions commencing with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and culminating in the doctrinal crystallisation achieved in Nilabati Behera, constructed a public law remedy of monetary compensation that is doctrinally distinct from, and not dependent upon, the common law action for damages in tort. The central jurisprudential contributions of Nilabati Behera—the rejection of sovereign immunity as a defence in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, and the affirmation that compensation constitutes a constitutionally appropriate remedy for infringement of fundamental rights by state agents—are subjected to detailed doctrinal analysis. The paper further traces the post-Nilabati jurisprudence, identifying doctrinal achievements and persistent limitations including quantum inconsistency, the substitution of compensation for criminal accountability, and structural access barriers. A comparative analysis of analogous frameworks under the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998, and the United States Section 1983 mechanism yields lessons for reform. The paper concludes with evidence-based legislative, institutional, and doctrinal recommendations directed at strengthening the compensation framework as an instrument of accountability, deterrence, and justice.

Keywords: Custodial Death; Constitutional Tort; Public Law Remedy; Nilabati Behera; Article 21; Sovereign Immunity; Writ Jurisdiction; State Liability; Quantum of Compensation; Comparative Human Rights Law.

REGULATING THE UNREGULATED: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF CRYPTOCURRENCY FRAMEWORKS IN INDIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND THE UNITED STATES

AUTHOR – VIKAS MISHRA, STUDENT AT CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), PUNE LAVASA

BEST CITATION – VIKAS MISHRA, REGULATING THE UNREGULATED: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF CRYPTOCURRENCY FRAMEWORKS IN INDIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND THE UNITED STATES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 375-389, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I837

ABSTRACT

The legal and regulatory issues pertaining to cryptocurrencies in the US, EU, and India are compared in this essay. The analysis is set against the backdrop of the WazirX hacking incident in 2024, which revealed serious weaknesses in India’s virtual digital asset regulations. The lack of comprehensive regulation has led to uncertainties over ownership rights, investor protection, regulatory monitoring, and responsibility in cases of financial loss, despite the growing acceptance and taxation of cryptocurrencies in India. Currently, Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) in India are subject to a 30% tax and a 1% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), but they are not officially recognised as property or legal tender under what academics refer to as a “taxed but unregulated” framework.

The study also looks at the different regulatory strategies used by the US and the EU. While the United States still uses a disjointed agency-driven paradigm with overlapping jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is the first comprehensive legislative framework for crypto-assets. However, recent events in both countries show efforts to improve supervision and harmonise regulations. Through this comparative analysis, the report makes the case that cryptocurrency regulation around the world is still in its infancy, with each country facing unique institutional and legal obstacles. It ends by outlining important lessons that India can learn from the US and EU frameworks while creating its own cogent and well-balanced cryptocurrency regulatory system.

Keywords: Cryptocurrency Regulation, Virtual Digital Assets, MiCA, SEC, CFTC, RBI, Property Law, Tax, AML, Blockchain, Legal Frameworks, Comparative Law

DRUG ADDICTION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS: LEGAL FRAMEWORKS, POLICY GAPS, AND THE WAY FORWARD

AUTHOR – PRABHU SURAJ J* & Mr. AJAY KRISHNA**

* STUDENT AT VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES (VISTAS)

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT SCHOOL OF LAW, VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED STUDIES (VISTAS)

BEST CITATION – PRABHU SURAJ J & Mr. AJAY KRISHNA, DRUG ADDICTION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS: LEGAL FRAMEWORKS, POLICY GAPS, AND THE WAY FORWARD, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 369-374, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

Drug addiction in India has gradually evolved from being viewed solely as a criminal issue to a more complex concern involving public health, human rights, and social welfare. Despite the presence of a stringent legal framework under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, substance abuse continues to rise across different sections of society, particularly among the youth. This raises important questions about the effectiveness of a system that relies heavily on punishment while offering limited emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation.

This article critically examines the existing legal framework governing drug control in India and evaluates whether it adequately addresses addiction as a public health issue. It explores the role of the judiciary, the gap between legislative intent and practical implementation, and the social stigma that continues to surround substance abuse. Drawing from both doctrinal analysis and empirical observations, the study highlights the limitations of a purely punitive approach.

The article argues that drug addiction cannot be effectively addressed without integrating healthcare, awareness, and rehabilitation into the legal response. It concludes by suggesting that a balanced and humane approach, combining legal regulation with public health strategies, is essential for meaningful reform.

Keywords: Drug addiction, NDPS Act, public health, rehabilitation, criminalization, stigma, policy reform

DIGITAL WELFARE AND MIGRANT VULNERABILITY: ASSESSING TECHNOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE, PRIVACY, AND INEQUALITY IN POST-PANDEMIC INDIA

AUTHOR – ABHINAV VISWANATH* & KRUTHA JANANI**

* ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT SASTRA UNIVERSITY

** STUDENT AT SASTRA UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – ABHINAV VISWANATH & KRUTHA JANANI, DIGITAL WELFARE AND MIGRANT VULNERABILITY: ASSESSING TECHNOLOGICAL GOVERNANCE, PRIVACY, AND INEQUALITY IN POST-PANDEMIC INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 354-368, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep structural vulnerabilities within India’s migrant labour economy, revealing significant gaps in welfare delivery and institutional preparedness. In response, the State increasingly adopted technology-driven governance mechanisms, including platforms such as the National Migrant Information System (NMIS), Aarogya Setu, and the e-Shram portal, to facilitate welfare delivery and data-driven policy interventions. This paper critically examines the effectiveness and constitutional implications of such digital welfare frameworks in the post-pandemic period (2020–2026).

Adopting a doctrinal and socio-legal methodology, the study evaluates digital welfare through the lens of digital equality, analysing how disparities in access to digital infrastructure, literacy, and identification systems affect migrant workers’ ability to benefit from these platforms. It argues that while digital governance enhances administrative efficiency and scalability, it simultaneously risks reinforcing structural inequalities by excluding those who lack digital access.

The paper further interrogates the constitutional dimensions of data-driven governance, particularly the right to privacy as articulated in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and examines the regulatory framework established under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the 2025 Rules. It highlights tensions between welfare objectives and privacy safeguards, especially in contexts involving large-scale data collection and algorithmic decision-making.

The study concludes that digital welfare systems must be restructured to ensure inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. It advocates for hybrid delivery models, strengthened data protection safeguards, and regulatory oversight of algorithmic governance to align technological innovation with constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and justice.

Keywords: Digital Governance; Migrant Labour; Digital Inequality; Data Privacy; Welfare State

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

AUTHOR – AISHWARYA VERMA* & DR. EKTA GUPTA**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

** ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – AISHWARYA VERMA & DR. EKTA GUPTA, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ANDCORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 348-353, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

The paper critically examines the regulatory regime of corporate governance in India, particularly scrutinizing its contribution to enhance corporate accountability and protect the rights of stakeholders. It examines the dynamics of compliance and governance going beyond compliance, involving social responsibility, environmental protection, and digital rights, through statutory provisions, regulatory oversight by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and judicial review. A range of doctrinal and procedural changes have been discussed, such as stakeholder engagement and innovations in the procedure, while important judicial decisions have reinforced transparency and ethical corporate behavior. The paper not only focuses on how the corporation can be instrumentally transformed to serve an inclusive and responsible development agenda, but also addresses concerns about the potential of regulatory overreach, and the need to maintain institutional balance. Landmark court decisions have really boosted transparency and pushed for better ethical behavior in companies. That part stands out because it shows how law can change business practices. The whole thing has potential to make development more inclusive and responsible. But there are worries about regulators going too far and messing up the balance between different institutions. I am not totally sure how to fix that yet.

BEYOND THE GAMBLING SHADOW: RETHINKING THE LEGAL STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL E-SPORTS IN INDIA THROUGH A SUI GENERIS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

AUTHOR – NAMIT GUPTA, BBA LLB (HONOURS) CANDIDATE, SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), PUNE LAVASA CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – NAMIT GUPTA,BEYOND THE GAMBLING SHADOW: RETHINKING THE LEGAL STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL E-SPORTS IN INDIA THROUGH A SUI GENERIS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 327-335, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I832

ABSTRACT

India’s professional e-sports industry — commanding over 500 million gamers and generating billions in annual revenue — remains ensnared in a nineteenth-century gambling law framework never designed to regulate it. This paper critically examines the structural mismatch between the Public Gambling Act, 1867’s ‘Skill vs. Chance’ Predominance Test and the cognitive, psychomotor, and strategic demands of modern competitive e-sports. Drawing on doctrinal analysis of landmark Indian jurisprudence — from State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (1957) to the contested Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA) — and a comparative survey of governance models in South Korea, Germany, and France, this paper argues that the continued application of gambling law to competitive e-sports constitutes a ‘category error’ that suppresses constitutional rights, denies player welfare protections, and undermines India’s geopolitical interests in the global digital economy. The paper proposes the adoption of a sui generis ‘Code of Conduct’ framework anchored in a dedicated E-Sports Act, establishing a National E-Sports Governing Authority (NEGA) with statutory powers over tournament licensing, player welfare standards, and integrity enforcement. This framework is argued to be not merely desirable but constitutionally required under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Keywords: E-sports regulation, Skill vs. Chance doctrine, Public Gambling Act 1867, PROGA 2025, sui generis framework, player welfare, NEGA, Indian gaming jurisprudence, competitive gaming, sports law.

“A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SEVENTH SCHEDULE MATTERS”

AUTHOR – GOKULRAJ A, LL.M (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW), GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, VELLORE, AFFILIATED WITH TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, TAMIL NADU.

BEST CITATION – GOKULRAJ A, “A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SEVENTH SCHEDULE MATTERS”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 311-326, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The Seventh Schedule’s allocation of legislative fields are rooted in the Government of India Act, 1935 and refined by the Constituent Assembly, which establishes a three-list framework that balances national unity with State autonomy through Union, State, and Concurrent Lists under Articles 246–255. The constitutional design elevates parliamentary primacy on Union subjects and provides a repugnancy rule for Concurrent matters, while preserving State exclusivity subject to harmonious construction and pith and substance analysis to manage overlaps. Historically, centralization increased during nation-building and through shifts like the 42nd Amendment, even as States retained core local competencies.

Judicial doctrine has stabilized this terrain, courts separate general regulatory heads from taxation entries, insist on ancillary encroachment only where proportionate, and deploy repugnancy and occupied field controls sparingly, keeping Article 254 as a last resort. Recent jurisprudence underscores these guardrails are maintaining State fiscal space in areas like mineral rights taxation subject to parliamentary limits, and policing attempts to expand non-tax entries into de facto taxes. The amendment process itself safeguards federal balance, as seen in limits on altering State List domains without State ratification.

This paper deals with the contemporary challenges that arise from emerging subjects like digital economy, environmental federalism, and complex supply chains, where entry ambiguity can spur intergovernmental friction, prompting calls for periodic review and rationalization of entries while respecting cooperative federalism. Today’s issues therefore center on calibrating national uniformity with local variation, clarifying concurrency without eroding autonomy, and updating the Schedule to contemporary governance needs without unsettling the Constitution’s unitary tilt with federal safeguards.

Key words:  Cooperative Federalism, Harmonious construction, Pith and substance, Repugnancy, Residuary power etc.

BLENDED PEDAGOGY AND REFLEXIVE LEARNING: RE‑IMAGINING THE LECTURE AND DISCUSSION METHODS IN LEGAL EDUCATION 

AUTHOR – GOKULRAJ A, LL.M (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW), GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, VELLORE, AFFILIATED WITH TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, TAMIL NADU.

BEST CITATION – GOKULRAJ A, BLENDED PEDAGOGY AND REFLEXIVE LEARNING: RE‑IMAGINING THE LECTURE AND DISCUSSION METHODS IN LEGAL EDUCATION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 253-261, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

“Education must begin with the solution of the teacher‑student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.”

Paulo Freire^[1]

Legal education has traditionally oscillated between the lecture method, which emphasizes structured doctrinal delivery, and the discussion method, which fosters dialogical engagement and critical reasoning. While each approach offers distinct pedagogical strengths, their exclusive use often results in either passive absorption of knowledge or fragmented debate lacking coherence. This article explores the concept of blended pedagogy as a means of integrating lectures and discussions to cultivate reflexive learning, a process through which students critically reconstruct legal knowledge within broader social and professional contexts.

Drawing on historical developments, comparative practices in leading law schools, and theoretical insights from educational thinkers, the study examines the suitability, scope, and impact of blended pedagogy in legal education. It highlights how this integrative model enhances doctrinal clarity, analytical skills, and adaptability, while also overlapping with and extending beyond the case study method. The article argues that blended pedagogy provides a more inclusive and transformative framework for legal teaching, capable of addressing contemporary challenges in professional training.

By re‑imagining lecture and discussion in tandem, the study proposes a reflexive model of legal education that balances precision with critical engagement, thereby preparing students for the complexities of modern legal practice. 

Key words: Blended Pedagogy, Reflexive Learning, Legal Education, Lecture vs. Discussion, Case Method Evolution

---

^[1] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, New York, 1970, p. 72.

TAX GOVERNANCE IN MSMES: ROLE OF BOARD OVERSIGHT IN PREVENTING REGULATORY NON-COMPLIANCE

AUTHOR – SIDHESWAR JENA, PHD SCHOLAR (LAW), VIVEKANANDA GLOBAL UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, INDIA

ORCID: HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0009-0009-0234-5831            

RESEARCH GATE: HTTPS://WWW.RESEARCHGATE.NET/PROFILE/SIDHESWAR-JENA

BEST CITATION – SIDHESWAR JENA,TAX GOVERNANCE IN MSMES: ROLE OF BOARD OVERSIGHT IN PREVENTING REGULATORY NON-COMPLIANCE INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 292-310, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I830

ABSTRACT

Indias Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) constitute the backbone of the national economy, contributing approximately 30% to GDP, 45% of exports, and employing over 110 million people. Despite their economic significance, MSMEs continue to face persistent challenges with tax regulatory compliance particularly under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime introduced in 2017. This paper examines the role of board oversight mechanisms in preventing GST compliance failures and other forms of regulatory non-compliance among Indian MSMEs. Grounded in Agency Theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) and Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984), the paper undertakes a doctrinal and analytical inquiry into the intersection of corporate governance and tax compliance in the MSME context.^[1][2]

The study maps the current GST compliance framework, analyses the personal liability of directors under Section 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and interrogates the governance responsibilities imposed on company directors under the Companies Act, 2013. Through a structured analysis of governance failures and compliance risk patterns, the paper identifies critical structural deficits in MSME boards including weak audit infrastructure, the absence of independent directors, and low director-level tax literacy that systemically heighten exposure to regulatory non-compliance. The paper culminates in a proposed Tax Governance Framework tailored for Indian MSMEs, encompassing compliance infrastructure, management-level monitoring, and board-level oversight mechanisms. Policy implications are drawn for regulators, including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), the GST Council, and the MSME Ministry, with recommendations toward a formal Tax Governance Code for MSMEs.^[3]

Keywords: MSMEs, GST compliance, board oversight, director liability, corporate governance, tax governance, India, CGST Act, Section 89, compliance failures

---

[1] Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. The seminal paper establishing principal-agent theory as the foundation of corporate governance. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

[2] Ministry of MSME (2024). Annual Report 2023-24. Government of India. MSMEs contribute ~30% to GDP, ~45% to merchandise exports, and employ over 110 million persons. https://msme.gov.in/sites/default/files/MSME-AR-2023-24-Eng.pdf

[3] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, No. 12 of 2017. Section 89 establishes joint and several personal liability of directors of private companies for unrecovered GST dues. Available at the official legislative portal: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2050/1/201712.pdf

INPUT TAX CREDIT (ITC) AND BLOCKED CREDITS UNDER GST: EXPLAINED SIMPLY

AUTHOR – JISHU DAS, STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TRIPURA

BEST CITATION – JISHU DAS, INPUT TAX CREDIT (ITC) AND BLOCKED CREDITS UNDER GST: EXPLAINED SIMPLY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 289-291, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Imagine you are running a small business. Every time you buy raw materials or services, you pay GST to your supplier. When you sell your product, you collect GST from your customer. Without any relief, you would end up paying tax on tax — which is unfair and increases the final price for everyone.

The Input Tax Credit (ITC) mechanism solves this problem. It lets you subtract the GST you paid on your purchases (inputs) from the GST you collect on your sales (outputs). You pay tax to the government only on the value you actually added. This is the heart of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system in India.