DEMATERIALIZATION MANDATE FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES: A STEP TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY OR A BURDEN ON SMES?

AUTHORS – RUDRA VASHISHTH* & MRS. SWARNIM CHOUDHARY**

* STUDENT AT QUANTUM UNIVERSITY, ROORKEE

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT QUANTUM UNIVERSITY, ROORKEE

BEST CITATION – RUDRA VASHISHTH & MRS. SWARNIM CHOUDHARY, DEMATERIALIZATION MANDATE FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES: A STEP TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY OR A BURDEN ON SMES?, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 630-640, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract –

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023, introduced Rule 9B mandating dematerialization of securities for private companies other than small companies. This reform represents a major shift in India’s corporate governance framework by extending digital securities compliance beyond listed and unlisted public companies to a substantial segment of private enterprises. The objective of the reform is to improve transparency, reduce fraud, streamline ownership tracking, and strengthen investor confidence. However, the mandate has also generated concerns regarding compliance costs, technological barriers, administrative burdens, and operational difficulties, especially for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) transitioning toward larger corporate status.

This paper critically examines the dematerialisation mandate from legal, economic, and governance perspectives. It evaluates whether the reform advances transparency and accountability or imposes disproportionate burdens on SMEs and closely held private companies. The paper analyses the legislative framework, practical implementation challenges, comparative global practices, stakeholder concerns, and the overall impact on India’s corporate ecosystem. The study argues that while the reform promotes digitisation and corporate transparency, its effectiveness depends upon balanced implementation, regulatory flexibility, cost rationalisation, and awareness among private companies. The paper concludes that the dematerialisation mandate is an important step toward modern corporate governance in India, but without adequate infrastructural and procedural support, it may create unintended compliance hardships for SMEs.

 Keywords- Dematerialisation, Private Companies, Rule 9B, Corporate Governance, MCA, Securities Regulation, SMEs, Transparency, Digital Securities, Companies Act, 2013, Compliance Burden, Investor Protection, Corporate Transparency, Depositories, Securities Market Reforms.

CASE COMMENTARY ON GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB (1996)

AUTHOR – BANSHIKA GUPTA, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, DAVV UNIVERSITY, INDORE (M.P.).

BEST CITATION – BANSHIKA GUPTA, CASE COMMENTARY ON GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB (1996), INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 626-629, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT

The landmark judgment in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab reshaped the constitutional discourse on life, dignity, and death in India. At its core, the case questioned whether the “right to life” under

Article 21 could be stretched to include a “right to die.” Confronting this complex issue, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion, holding that life and death are conceptually incompatible within the constitutional framework. By overruling P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Court restored the validity of Sections 306 and 309 IPC, while drawing a nuanced distinction between suicide and its abetment. Importantly, the judgment acknowledged that dignity in life extends until its natural end, opening the door to discussions on dignified death in exceptional circumstances. Balancing individual autonomy with societal interests, the ruling remains a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, influencing debates on euthanasia, mental health, and the evolving meaning of human dignity.

A LEGAL STUDY ON ANTI- COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS IN INDIA

AUTHOR – M RAJESH* & RADHA JAYASHEELA P S**

* 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 – M RAJESH & RADHA JAYASHEELA P S, A LEGAL STUDY ON ANTI- COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 624-625, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Introduction

Competition is a fundamental pillar of a healthy market economy. It promotes efficiency, innovation, and consumer welfare by encouraging businesses to offer better products and services at competitive prices. However, when enterprises enter into agreements that distort or restrict competition, the very essence of a free market is undermined. Such arrangements, known as anti- competitive agreements, pose serious threats to economic growth and consumer interests.

In India, the challenge of detecting and regulating anti- competitive agreements is particularly complex due to the diversity of markets and the covert nature of such arrangements. These agreements often occur behind closed doorз, using informal communications or tacit understandings that leave little direct evidence. Recognizing these challenges, the legislature enacted the Competition Act, 2002 to regulate and prevent practices that adversely affect competition.

This article examines the concept, evolution, types, and legal implications of anti- competitive agreements in India, along with the role of adjudicatory bodies and key judicial decisions shaping this area of law.

PIRACY, NAVAL ENFORCEMENT, AND PROSECUTION: INDIA–US COMPARATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER UNCLOS

AUTHOR – SHIVIKA JADAUN* & DR. NIKUNJ YADAV**

* STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – SHIVIKA JADAUN & DR. NIKUNJ YADAV, PIRACY, NAVAL ENFORCEMENT, AND PROSECUTION: INDIA–US COMPARATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER UNCLOS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 617-623, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract

High seas piracy is among the most endemic problems to international maritime security, international trade and freedom of navigation. Although there has been improved technology and the use of coordinated naval patrols, the cases of piracy have been reported in strategic sea routes like the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, and the Western Indian Ocean. This article discusses the piracy, naval enforcement and prosecution in the comparative legal approach of India and United States based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It assesses the interpretation and acts of international obligation of the two countries in regards to suppression of piracy, universal jurisdiction, apprehending of offenders and criminal prosecution. Whereas India depends on domestic laws like the Maritime Anti-Piracy Act, the United States employs old federal laws on piracy and has the military capability to back it up. The paper identifies the gaps in enforcement, lack of evidence, and conflict of jurisdiction, as well as the necessity to further enhance international collaboration to deal with changing threats of maritime piracy.

“BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FINTECH ERA”

AUTHOR – HIMANSHU PANET* & ANUJ SETHI**

* STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – HIMANSHU PANET & ANUJ SETHI, “BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FINTECH ERA”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 608-616, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT

Once mostly connected to cryptocurrencies, blockchain technology has developed into a disruptive force in a number of industries, including the legal field^[1]. The relationship between blockchain technology and legal systems is examined in this study, with an emphasis on the opportunities and difficulties associated with incorporating blockchain technology into current legal frameworks. Blockchain has the ability to completely transform legal transactions, contract execution, and data privacy management due to its decentralised, unchangeable, and transparent nature. Nevertheless, for blockchain^[2] to be successfully integrated into legal systems, a number of regulatory obstacles, including jurisdictional problems, a lack of standardisation, and worries about privacy and security, must be resolved. The fintech ecosystem has been a key facilitator of digital transformation as India begins its journey on a digital trajectory. One of the most talked-about technological phrases in the fintech industry is next-generation trading currencies based on blockchain technology. However, more stringent legal frameworks apply to digital currencies and assets that also employ DLT underneath. This study offers a framework for analysing this particular concern of policymakers and the Central Bank, which highlights the necessity of regulatory frameworks that simultaneously protect users’ interests and the country’s economic and security interests.

KEYWORDS – blockchain, india, USA, UK, regulation

---

[1] Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2008).

[2] Primavera De Filippi & Aaron Wright, Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code (Harvard University Press, 2018).

“EVOLUTION OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATION IN INDIA: FROM JUDICIAL SKEPTICISM TO STATUTORY RECOGNITION”

AUTHOR – JEESHANT AGRAWAL* & ANUJ SETHI**

* STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – JEESHANT AGRAWAL & ANUJ SETHI, “EVOLUTION OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATION IN INDIA: FROM JUDICIAL SKEPTICISM TO STATUTORY RECOGNITION”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 599-607, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract

Emergency arbitration is one of the particularities which are needed to preserve the status quo of a commercial dispute which includes a cross-border transaction and time is critical in such a situation. Emergency arbitration is the quickest and most efficient method when an interim relief is required urgently,^[1] as it is almost suicidal to have the courts wait. In India, however, the development of what the notion of emergency arbitration has been has been difficult and complex. Indian courts at first sight appeared to be extremely sceptical of the idea^[2] that an emergency arbitration would be effective partly due to the fact that the law did not directly provide that an arbitrator can be brought in as an emergency measure. In addition, they believed that Section 9 was the sole hub of interim orders,^[3] thus they could not regard an emergency arbitrator as the approachable authority of giving interlocutory relief in the presence of a full arbitral tribunal. Indian court judgments and rules in SIAC, ICC, and LCIA (with emergency arbitrators) were not paired until SIAC, ICC, and LCIA all tackled the question of emergency arbitrators in 2021 in the case Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. Specifically the decision that concluded the practices of enforcing awards made by emergency arbitrators^[4] should be governed by Section 17(2) was groundbreaking, indicating that the judicial branch holds that the parties should have autonomy in their decision-making and the arbitration regulations. As India continues to gain momentum worldwide and establish legal frameworks to do so, the resolution would argue that statute law has to formally acknowledge the existence of the emergency arbitration, establish a defined regime of performance, and reinforce institutions, so that India becomes an effective pro-arbitration jurisdiction that will be able to handle international business.

---

[1] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd ed., 2021).

[2] Ajar Rab, “Emergency Arbitration in India: The Changing Judicial Landscape,” (2019) 8 Indian J. Arb. L. 45.

[3] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, §9.

[4] Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 409.

“INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADE SECRETS AND TECH TRANSFER IN CELLULAR AGRICULTURE: CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES”

AUTHOR – TANYA RASTOGI* & MS. PURNIMA TYAGI**

* STUDENT AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY

BEST CITATION – TANYA RASTOGI & MS. PURNIMA TYAGI, “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADE SECRETS AND TECH TRANSFER IN CELLULAR AGRICULTURE: CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 588-598, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract

Cellular agriculture, which is the main components of the supply chain, includes cultivated meat, precision fermentation as well as cell, based dairy and the major dependence is on IP and proprietary know, how for transforming laboratory innovation into the production of food systems that are commercially scalable. The legal frameworks governing patents, trade secrets, and cross, border technology transfer have become complicated and fragmented as the financial investments worldwide have been considerably increased. To understand how diverse innovation pathways are affected by the varying patent standards, biological material exclusions, and disclosure requirements, this article compares the United States, European Union, Singapore, and India. It is noted that the relatively less restrictive biotech patent conditions in the US and Singapore are counterbalanced by the EU’s cautious stance and India’s legal prohibitions under Sections 3(c), 3(i), and 3(j), which lead to the areas of cell lines, growth media, and bioprocess engineering becoming unclear with regard to the patent protection.

Simultaneously, trade, secret protection is at the core of the security of confidential cell, culture methods and scale, up processes, which differ considerably thus, the US DTSA and EU Trade Secrets Directive provide strong statutory support as compared to India’s common, law, based regime. Besides competition law, licensing complexities, and Nagoya Protocol obligations, cross, border technology transfer has further limitations. The study ends up with the identification of principal harmonisation differences and the proposal of policy amendments orienting towards the maintenance of a safe, ethical, and innovation, driven development of cellular agriculture within an interoperable global regulatory framework.

THE ALGORITHMIC INVENTOR AND THE ANTIQUATED STATUTE: RE-ENGINEERING THE INDIAN PATENT SYSTEM IN RESPONSE TO AUTONOMOUSLY GENERATED AI INVENTIONS

AUTHOR – RIDDHI JAIN, BBA LL.B. (H.), AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – RIDDHI JAIN, THE ALGORITHMIC INVENTOR AND THE ANTIQUATED STATUTE: RE-ENGINEERING THE INDIAN PATENT SYSTEM IN RESPONSE TO AUTONOMOUSLY GENERATED AI INVENTIONS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 576-587, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I860

ABSTRACT

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a capable creator of novel and patentable inventions has exposed significant limitations within the Indian patent framework. The Patents Act, 197o, is fundamentally premised on human inventorship, thereby rendering it inadequate in addressing inventions autonomously generated by AI systems. This paper critically examines the concept of the “algorithmic inventor” and highlights the legal vacuum concerning inventorship, ownership, and accountability in such cases.¹

Historically, intellectual property regimes were constructed around the “Romantic Author” or “Human Inventor” theory—the belief that innovation is a byproduct of human cognitive labor and subjective “sparks of genius.” However, the transition from AI as a mere tool to AI as a generative agent has fractured this human-centric paradigm. This research explores the doctrinal tension between the “Mental Act” requirement in patent law and the computational reality of deep learning, where inventive outputs are derived through non-linear data processing rather than human biological thought.

The analysis further extends to international developments, particularly the landmark “DABUS” (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) cases across several jurisdictions. These cases serve as a global litmus test, revealing a profound hesitation in recognizing non-human entities as inventors due to statutory constraints and public policy concerns regarding liability and personhood. In the Indian context, the paper scrutinizes the interplay between Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which bars algorithms per se, and the evolving standards of Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs).

By identifying the “Black Box” challenge—where the internal logic of an AI system remains opaque to the human eye—the paper underscores the growing difficulty in satisfying the statutory requirements of “Enablement” and “Disclosure.” The research argues for a strategic “re-engineering” of the patent system. It proposes a shift toward a hybrid inventorship model, the introduction of sui generis protections for machine-generated works, and a recalibration of the “Person Skilled in the Art” (PHoSITA) standard. Ultimately, this study advocates for a flexible, forward-looking legal architecture that balances the necessity of incentivizing AI-driven technological leaps with the essential need to preserve human accountability and the public interest.²

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

AUTHOR – SOURAV TANWAR* & DR TRAPTI VARSHNEY**

* STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

** PROFESSOR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – SOURAV TANWAR & DR TRAPTI VARSHNEY, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 566-575, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

Corporate Social Responsibility in India represents a distinctive regulatory experiment where voluntary philanthropic traditions have been transformed into mandatory legal obligations through statutory intervention. This paper critically examines the legal framework governing CSR under the Companies Act, 2013, analyzing whether mandatory spending requirements effectively advance social development objectives or merely create compliance burdens without corresponding societal benefits. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions, regulatory guidelines, judicial interpretations, and empirical implementation patterns, this research investigates the effectiveness of India’s pioneering approach to legislating corporate social obligations. The examination reveals that while India became the first nation globally to mandate CSR expenditure, implementation challenges including narrow interpretations of eligible activities, preference for safe and visible projects over impactful interventions, geographical concentration in already developed regions, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms have limited transformative potential. The regulatory architecture establishing spending thresholds, board-level CSR committees, and prescribed activity schedules creates accountability structures yet simultaneously generates compliance-oriented approaches prioritizing expenditure documentation over genuine social impact assessment. However, the framework has successfully mainstreamed CSR discourse within corporate governance, generated substantial financial flows toward social sectors, and established precedents for corporate accountability beyond shareholder value maximization. Recommendations emphasize strengthening impact measurement requirements, encouraging collaborative and innovative CSR approaches, addressing geographical disparities in CSR deployment, enhancing regulatory oversight capacity, and balancing mandatory compliance with flexibility enabling contextually appropriate interventions that genuinely advance sustainable development objectives.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Companies Act 2013; CSR spending; corporate governance; social development; regulatory compliance; sustainable development; Schedule VII activities.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS IN INDIA- POWER, PROTECTION, AND CONTROVERSY

AUTHOR – MADHUMITHA. E, B.A, LL.B., STUDENT AT ERODE COLLEGE OF LAW

BEST CITATION – MADHUMITHA. E, THE ARCHITECTURE OF ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS IN INDIA- POWER, PROTECTION, AND CONTROVERSY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (8) OF 2026, PG. 553-565, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I858

INTRODUCTION:

Anti-terrorism laws in India are a set of legal provisions designed to prevent, combat, and prosecute terrorist activities and organisations within the country. These laws aim to provide the government with the necessary tools to protect citizens and maintain law and order in the face of terrorist threats. The main anti-terrorism law in India is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which was first enacted in 1967 and has since undergone several amendments to make it more stringent. The UAPA provides the legal framework for the prevention of terrorism, the freezing of terrorist assets, the seizure of properties, and the prosecution of individuals involved in terrorist activities. The law has been used to prosecute several high-profile cases, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Other important anti-terrorism laws in India include the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act) of 2008, which created the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute cases related to terrorism and other national security issues. The NIA Act also provides the NIA with extensive powers to conduct investigations and make arrests. While these laws have been effective in some cases, they have also been criticised for being misused to target individuals and organisations that are critical of the government. There have been concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the implementation of these laws, as well as the potential for human rights violations.