This long article is written by Pratik Prakash Jaiswal from, G. H. Raisoni Law College, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University,Maharashtra, India

Abstract

This article examines the evolution and contemporary relevance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India through the analytical frame of sociological jurisprudence, with a specific focus on privacy and protection laws in the digital age. It traces doctrinal and practical developments from the procedural innovations that democratised access to courts, to landmark constitutional rulings that enshrined privacy, dignity and equality as enforceable rights. By analysing prominent PILs and constitutional judgments, including Hussainara Khatoon, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Olga Tellis, Vishaka, NALSA, K.S. Puttaswamy, the Aadhaar litigation and Navtej Singh Johar, the paper demonstrates how courts have used purposive interpretation, continuing mandamus and proportionality tests to secure substantive protections for marginalised groups. The study then turns to emerging challenges: algorithmic decision-making, mass surveillance, cyber insecurity, and innovations in financial technology such as cryptocurrencies, all of which raise complex questions about informational autonomy, transparency, accountability and distributive fairness. Methodologically, the paper synthesises doctrinal analysis with socio-legal evidence and technical audits filed in PILs to assess real-world impact. Drawing on comparative perspectives and contemporary regulatory debates, the article proposes a pragmatic framework for deploying PILs in the digital era: clearer proportionality standards, institutional collaboration with regulators and technical experts, targeted and measurable remedies, and robust monitoring mechanisms. While PILs cannot substitute for comprehensive legislative frameworks, they catalyse rights protection, prompt regulatory action and ensure that vulnerable communities are not left behind. The conclusion emphasises that a renewed sociological jurisprudence, one that honors constitutional commitments to social justice while embracing technical expertise and democratic processes, can help preserve meaningful fundamental rights amid rapid technological change. Finally, the paper stresses that judicial success depends on sustained civic engagement, institutional accountability and continuous evaluation of technological systems for fairness and inclusion.

Keywords: Public Interest Litigation, Privacy, Data Protection, Sociological Jurisprudence, AI & Law

This dissertation is written by Prasoon Kumar. 

‘Mahatma Gandhi’ once said that “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind” and ADR promotes resolution through dialogue, understanding and compromise rather than conflicts and retaliation.

This abstract is about the impact of Dispute resolution in a global context. In a world that is globalised, resolution of dispute across borders becomes significantly important for the maintenance of international cooperation, commerce, governance etc. This might involve mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, litigation, negotiation which are specifically designed to address the complexities of inter border conflicts while also keeping in regards the cultural and legal differences. However, challenges like conflicts over jurisdiction, diversity in culture persists. For such challenges there are solutions like online dispute resolution (ODR) among others which lend a significant hand to enhance accessibility and cost efficiency.

The future of dispute resolution globally is dependent upon harmonization of legal frameworks, inclusiveness being fostered and building up of international cooperation. By strengthening this mechanism, we can ensure stability and thereby uphold the rule of law and promote the situation of trust in an increasingly interconnected society. The objective is multifaceted; it firstly aims to comprehend the idea of alternate dispute resolution and investigate current worldwide trends in ADR with an emphasis on contemporary times. Additionally, the study will also examine ADR procedures in other nations and the global business community, thereby also highlighting regional differences and the function of ADR in promoting trade at an international level. Lastly, the writing will make recommendations for international cooperation, technological integration and legal reforms as ways to improve the ADR system. This article attempts to give a thorough grasp of ADR’s ability to close gaps in international conflict resolution by examining its historical evolution in contemporary applications. Technology has the ability to promote a more effective, equitable and connected world as it continues to influence ADR’s future.

This long article is written by Dr. Kuldeep Singh Panwar, co authored by K. Livi Yeptho.

Abstract

Women make up half the population of the nation, and with education, they can be empowered to go on to contribute to the Indian economy. Empowerment of women through education will allow them to counter provocation, fight generational biases, and transform their suppressed reality. Even with continuous efforts to abolish gender inequality and the patriarchal nature of society, discrimination continues to exist. A lot requires action in the domain of education for women in order to do away with this prejudice. Naturally, women are built differently from men, but that should not hinder them from realizing their true potential because when it comes to proving their grit, women have always excelled, and sometimes even better than men. It is not to say that men should be demoted, but a fair and equal opportunity to both sexes on unbiased grounds would make a significant impact in ensuring a better nation tomorrow.

Empowering women through education is not solely about literacy; it is about creating a domino effect that impacts generations. A literate woman evolves into an informed mother, a competent worker, and an agile citizen who becomes a responsible citizen in moulding the sociodemographic essence of the nation. In the non-urban regions, especially, the existence of one educated woman can alter community practices concerning child care, hygiene, and nutrition, exhibiting that empowerment is both personal and collective. Therefore, edifying women should not be a representative gesture, but a fundamental amelioration that fuels the very foundation of democracy and development.

Keywords: Women’s Empowerment, Female Literacy Rate, United Nations, Participation, Patriarchal

This Long Article has been written by Karunakaran. Karunakaran is pursuing LL.M from Govt. Law College, Thrissur. 

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011) was a turning point in Indian legal history. While it arose from the conviction of a man for murdering a sex worker, the Court went beyond the immediate facts and addressed the larger question of the rights and dignity of sex workers. For the first time, the Court clearly stated that sex workers, like all other citizens, are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to life, livelihood, health, privacy, and dignity. Using its powers under Article 142, the Court also formed a panel of experts and directed steps to prevent police harassment, secure access to healthcare and welfare benefits, and ensure that the children of sex workers are not stigmatised or unnecessarily separated from their mothers.

However, when examined in the context of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 (ITPA), the judgment reveals a strong conflict between constitutional rights and statutory restrictions. The ITPA, which began as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 and was amended in 1986, takes a largely punitive approach. Although aimed at curbing trafficking, the Act criminalises many aspects of sex work—such as running brothels (S. 3), living on earnings of sex work (S. 4), and soliciting in public (S. 8). These provisions make it nearly impossible for sex workers to practice their livelihood without breaking the law. Further, the “rescue and rehabilitation” provisions (Ss. 16–17) often result in detention without consent, undermining the very autonomy the Court sought to recognise.

The Budhadev Karmaskar case can therefore be understood as an effort to balance the constitutional promise of dignity with a law that continues to treat sex work through the lens of morality and criminalisation. While the Court’s directions soften the harshness of the ITPA, they cannot substitute legislative change. This highlights the urgent need for reform to remove contradictions between Article 21’s broad protections and the restrictive provisions of the Act.

This article critically explores the Budhadev Karmaskar judgment in relation to the ITPA, 1986. It reviews the historical development of India’s laws on sex work, evaluates the constitutional values reinforced by the Court, and analyses the gap between judicial protection and legislative control. It also compares India’s position with global approaches—contrasting the restrictive “Nordic model” with New Zealand’s decriminalisation framework. Ultimately, it argues that although the judgment is progressive, its impact will remain limited unless the ITPA is reformed to decriminalise consensual adult sex work and bring sex workers fully within the fold of constitutional rights and social protections.

Key words:

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Sex Work in India, Budhadev Karmaskar Judgment, Constitutional Rights of Sex Workers, Decriminalisation of Sex Work.

This long article is written by Karuna Kaushik, a postgraduate in Political Science from IGNOU and UGC NET qualifier in the same subject, the author is a freelance creative and academic content writer with an experience of about 10 years in the writing field, also having worked with organisations like Drishti IAS and GS Score, New Delhi. Currently, the author is pursuing MA History from IGNOU.

ABSTRACT

Following the Supreme Court of India’s Vishaka guidelines judgment of 1997, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) became a landmark social legislation to ensure constitutional rights of women to equality, dignity, and safe working conditions. This paper attempts to trace the journey, efficiency, challenges, and loopholes of the Act, and suggest measures for its effective implementation in the future. The paper follows a case-by-case journey approach to illustrate these points. This paper is, therefore, a critical examination of the implementational deficit of the POSH Act.

It underlines the persistent shortcomings, widespread non-compliance with mandatory Internal Committees (ICs), systemic neglect of Local Committees (LCs) that cover the informal sector, inadequate training of committee members, and absence of uniform procedures. Data indicates troubling disparities: while large companies increasingly report cases, smaller firms and the informal sector remain black holes of compliance, perpetuating the “zero-case paradox.” Fear of retaliation, entrenched cultural taboos, and low awareness further silence women, limiting the Act’s effectiveness as a protective framework.

The Supreme Court’s interventions, particularly in Aureliano Fernandes v State of Goa, have shifted enforcement from a complaint-driven to a state-monitored model, mandating compliance surveys, functional LCs, and digital integration via the SHe-Box portal. The paper concludes that bridging the chasm between law and practice requires a multi-pronged approach: legislative amendments to codify procedures and anti-retaliation protections, stronger penalties for non-compliance, mandatory standardized training, and cultural change initiatives. Only through systemic accountability, proactive governance, and social transformation can the POSH Act fulfil its original vision of ensuring safe, inclusive, and equitable workplaces for all women in India.

Keywords – Zero case Paradox, She-Box, Vishaka Guidelines, POSH Act 2013, judicial activism

This long article is written by Divyansh Verma, M.A., Criminology and Criminal Justice Administration, Faculty of Art, Lucknow University of Lucknow, UP, India & Neeraj Kumar, LL.M. (Law), Faculty of Law, BBA University (A Central University) Lucknow, UP, India,

Abstract

The rapid expansion of digital technologies has created both opportunities and challenges, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity. As cybercrime evolves in complexity and scale, traditional methods of defense have proven insufficient to counter emerging threats such as phishing, ransomware, and large-scale network intrusions. This study explores how advanced technological tools are being adopted to strengthen cybercrime prevention and investigation, with a particular focus on comparing India’s progress with global practices. While many developed nations have integrated sophisticated solutions into government and private-sector systems, India’s adoption has been slower, hindered by infrastructural constraints, regulatory uncertainty, and limited technical expertise. Nevertheless, recent initiatives-ranging from policy reforms to the establishment of dedicated cybercrime units-highlight growing recognition of the need for stronger defenses. The research identifies a key gap: global literature provides extensive insights into large-scale implementation and operational successes, yet little work examines how these strategies can be adapted to the Indian context. This comparative approach aims to highlight differences in adoption, analyze the challenges unique to India, and suggest ways to integrate international best practices into local frameworks. Ultimately, the study contributes to bridging the divide between conceptual discussions and practical enforcement, offering insights that are crucial for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and technology developers alike. By situating India within a broader global context, the research underscores the importance of building context-specific strategies that combine technological innovation with legal, institutional, and social considerations.

Keywords: Cybercrime, Digital Security, Comparative Study, Law Enforcement, Policy Framework