DIGITAL DEMOCRACY OR DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE? EXAMINING ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION AND A NATIONAL VOTER DATABASE IN INDIA

AUTHOR – ADV. HARSHA S. DUBEY, LL.M FINAL YEAR IN DES’S SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE, PUNE UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – ADV. HARSHA S. DUBEY, DIGITAL DEMOCRACY OR DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE? EXAMINING ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION AND A NATIONAL VOTER DATABASE IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 739-747, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IIQT8867

ABSTRACT

As democratic governance increasingly relies on digital infrastructure, the boundary between efficient administration and intrusive surveillance becomes increasingly complex. India’s proposals for One Nation, One Election (ONOE) and the creation of a National Voter Database represent ambitious attempts to modernize the electoral system through synchronization and digitization. These reforms aim to conduct simultaneous elections for the national and state legislatures while consolidating voter information into a unified digital database. Proponents argue that such measures could significantly reduce the financial and administrative burden of conducting frequent elections, improve electoral roll accuracy, and enhance governance efficiency. However, critics caution that these reforms may simultaneously create risks related to data privacy, surveillance, and the erosion of federal democratic structures. The ONOE proposal seeks to address these inefficiencies by synchronizing elections across the country, thereby minimizing election-related disruptions and enabling governments to focus on policy implementation. Similarly, the creation of a centralized voter database could streamline voter registration processes, eliminate duplicate entries, and improve electoral management through digital verification systems. If integrated with digital identity systems such as Aadhaar, the aggregation of personal data may enable large-scale monitoring of citizens’ political behavior. These concerns are particularly relevant in light of the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Additionally, critics argue that simultaneous elections could weaken federalism by overshadowing regional political issues.This paper analyzes the legal, political, and technological implications of ONOE and a national voter database.

Keywords: Aadhaar Linkage, Data Protection, Digital Governance, Electoral Reforms, Federalism, Mass Surveillance, National Voter Database.

EVOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA: COLONIAL LEGACY AND REFORMS

AUTHOR – ABHYUDAY RAM TRIPATHI* & DR.SHEEBA KHALID**

* STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – ABHYUDAY RAM TRIPATHI & DR.SHEEBA KHALID, EVOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA: COLONIAL LEGACY AND REFORMS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 727-738, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

The criminal justice system in India has evolved from a plural and community-based set of norms in the pre-colonial period to a highly codified, state-centric apparatus under British rule and a rights-oriented, constitutional framework in the post-independence era. The British introduced the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to serve imperial interests, centralise authority, and control subject populations rather than to secure substantive justice. After 1950, the Constitution reoriented this inherited system around fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22, and the Supreme Court gradually transformed criminal procedure through expansive interpretations of Article 21. Subsequent statutory and institutional reforms—including the CrPC 1973, victim-centric rape law amendments, the Malimath Committee’s recommendations, police reforms mandated in Prakash Singh, and recognition of rights such as speedy trial and safeguards against custodial torture—have sought to reconcile colonial-era structures with democratic values. Yet many colonial legacies endure in policing culture, penal practices, and hierarchical institutional design, as highlighted by contemporary scholarship and recent debates around the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) enacted to replace the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act.

This paper traces the historical evolution of the Indian criminal justice system, analyses the colonial imprint on substantive, procedural, and institutional arrangements, and critically evaluates major post-independence reforms with reference to leading case law. It argues that while constitutional jurisprudence has significantly humanised criminal law and procedure, structural and cultural continuities from the colonial period continue to limit the system’s capacity to deliver speedy, fair and victim-sensitive justice.

Keywords

1. Dharmashastra
2. Legal Traditions
3. Indian Penal Code
4. Criminal Procedure Code
5. Indian Evidence Act

GETTY IMAGES V STABILITY AI: COPYRIGHT LAW MEETS GENERATIVE AI

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

BEST CITATION – HARINI VENKATESH, GETTY IMAGES V STABILITY AI: COPYRIGHT LAW MEETS GENERATIVE AI, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 722-726, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

The fast growth of artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most significant legal issues in this age of technology: whether or not it is copyright infringement to use copyrighted recordings for the purpose of training artificial intelligence.  Courts around the world are now being called on to determine if machine learning technologies are covered under the historically traditional laws of Copyright.

One of the earliest to reach a legal determination regarding this issue is the case of Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd before the High Court of England and Wales.

The dispute began when Getty Images accused Stability AI of illegally using millions of its copyrighted photographs from its large database to train its generative AI model, Stable Diffusion.  The case pitted the creative industries, who rely upon copyright protection, against the creators of artificial intelligence machines, who used large collections of data sets to train their machines.

While the proceedings generated significant concern regarding AI training practices, there was not much in the way of an overall decision in respect of AI training infringements. The Court dealt principally with questions of secondary copyright violations or trademark infringement; however, did leave the core question of whether AI training in and of itself constitutes Copyright infringement; this was not really answered at all. The case is significant as it represents an early attempt by the Courts to assess the legal status of AI models with relation to the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.

COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF MATRIMONIAL REMEDIES UNDER HINDU AND MUSLIM LAWS

AUTHOR – SHIPRA SINGH* & DR JUHI SAXENA**

* STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

** ASSISTANT PROFESSORS AT AMITY UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

BEST CITATION – SHIPRA SINGH & DR JUHI SAXENA, COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF MATRIMONIAL REMEDIES UNDER HINDU AND MUSLIM LAWS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 717-722, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

The remedies of matrimony constitute an important aspect of the Indian personal laws, providing the legal basis to deal with marriage disputes and safeguard the rights of individuals and bring about social justice in the marriage institution. These remedies exist under the special personal laws, especially the Hindu and Muslim laws, since India has a pluralistic legal system and are disparate in their conceptual basis, process, and relief. This paper engages in a comparative analysis of matrimonial remedies in Hindu law, which is mainly regulated by Hindu marriage act 1955 and Muslim law, which was regulated by Quran, Dissolution of Muslim marriages act 1939 and the judicial precedent. The paper looks at the most influential matrimonial remedies including restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage, divorce and maintenance with the similarities and differences in their application. It fundamentally examines the character of marriage in both systems of law sacramental and contractual marriage, and the effect of this difference on the grounds of remedy and its flexibility. The special attention is given to the role of women, gender justice, and constitutionality of some practices. The paper also examines how the judiciary may act to balance the personal laws with the constitutional values of equality, dignity and personal liberty. Modern issues like the problem of gender inequality, the conflict between individual legislation and the basic rights and the current controversy on the Uniform Civil Code are discussed. The paper will come to the conclusion by highlighting the necessity of reform-based, gender, and constitutionally consistent matrimonial solutions and maintaining the plurality of the Indian personal law system. The article, based on doctrinal and comparative method, contributes to a better understanding of the matrimonial justice in India and the way the personal law reforms are going to have a new direction.

Keywords: Matrimonial Remedies; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Muslim Personal Law; Divorce; Maintenance; Gender Justice; Personal Laws; Constitutional Values; Comparative Study

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE “RIGHT TO MENTAL PRIVACY”: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR NEURAL DATA UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

AUTHOR – S PAULINE PRIYA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT ST JOSEPHS COLLEGE OF LAW

BEST CITATION – S PAULINE PRIYA, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE “RIGHT TO MENTAL PRIVACY”: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR NEURAL DATA UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 710-716, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The rapid commercialization of brain-computer interface technologies has created an urgent constitutional dilemma, does the Indian Constitution protect the privacy of our thoughts. This article argues that Article 21 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(a), implies a robust right to mental privacy—the freedom from warrantless governmental and commercial access to neural data. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on privacy, dignity, and self-incrimination, this article contends that neural data deserves heightened constitutional protection as the “forum internum” of human consciousness. Part I examines the technological landscape of neurotechnology in India. Part II traces the doctrinal foundations of mental privacy in Indian constitutional law, from Kharak Singh to Puttaswamy. Part III analyzes the Selvi v. State of Karnataka judgment as the foundational case for mental privacy. Part IV examines the inadequacy of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in protecting neural data. Part V proposes a constitutional framework for assessing governmental and commercial access to neural data. The article concludes that India’s constitutional framework must evolve to protect the last private frontier the human mind and recommends both judicial recognition and legislative codification of neurorights.

Keywords: Mental Privacy, Article 21, Neurotechnology, Puttaswamy Judgment, Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Cognitive Liberty, Data Protection

CORPORATE BURDEN VS. WORKER SECURITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MATERNITY BENEFIT FUNDING IN INDIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

BEST CITATION – T ADISREE, CORPORATE BURDEN VS. WORKER SECURITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MATERNITY BENEFIT FUNDING IN INDIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 701-709, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This research paper provides a comparative analysis of maternity benefit funding models in India and the United Kingdom, examining the socio-economic consequences of employer-liability and social insurance frameworks. Following the 2017 amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act, India extended paid maternity leave to twenty-six weeks while retaining a pure employer-liability funding model. Empirical research suggests that this structure has contributed to a measurable “motherhood penalty,” including reduced interview invitations and a shift toward precarious employment arrangements for women of childbearing age.

A central focus of this analysis is the Supreme Court’s decision in Kavitha Yadav v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Court established the doctrine of notional employment extension, holding that maternity benefits cannot be curtailed merely because a fixed-term contract expires during the leave period. While this interpretation strengthens worker protection, it simultaneously expands the financial obligations of employers.

By contrast, the United Kingdom’s Statutory Maternity Pay system operates through a social insurance framework funded by National Insurance contributions. The existence of Small Employers’ Relief allows firms to reclaim a significant proportion of maternity payments, thereby reducing the financial disincentive to hire women. This paper argues that India should gradually transition toward a shared-responsibility model, combining employer participation with state-funded reimbursement mechanisms.

Key Words: Maternity Benefit, Employer Liability Model, Social Insurance , Family Welfare, Motherhood Penalty

LEGALISING PROSTITUTION TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: EXAMINING THE POLICY DEBATE

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

BEST CITATION – MEENAKSHI NIRMAL, LEGALISING PROSTITUTION TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: EXAMINING THE POLICY DEBATE, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 691-700, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

Abstract

This paper examines whether legalising prostitution is an effective strategy to combat human trafficking in India. It surveys India’s legal framework on prostitution and trafficking, assesses scholarly and policy literature, and compares outcomes in other jurisdictions (notably the Netherlands and Sweden). India’s law permits consensual sex work per se but criminalises related activities (brothel-keeping, pimping, public solicitation) under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC). Proponents argue that legalisation protects sex workers and reduces hidden exploitation, while opponents contend it expands demand and fuels trafficking. Empirical studies (e.g. Cho et al., World Dev. 41:67 (2013)) suggest a larger “scale effect” of legalisation leading to higher trafficking inflows[1][2]. The Netherlands’ regulated model has faced criticism for persistent underground sex markets and trafficking[3]. Sweden’s “Nordic model” claims success in shrinking public prostitution and deterring traffickers[4], but critics note data limitations and potential harms to sex workers. In India’s context, legalisation alone cannot resolve trafficking without robust enforcement, social welfare and addressing root causes. A nuanced approach is needed, balancing rights of voluntary sex workers with strict measures against coercion and exploitation. The paper concludes that legalising prostitution is not a panacea for trafficking in India; it may help protect sex workers if accompanied by safeguards, but will not by itself eliminate trafficking.

Keywords

Prostitution Legalisation; Human Trafficking; Sex Workers’ Rights; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Nordic Model; Anti-Trafficking Law.

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