This Long Article has beeen written by Vimala Mary A and Ashelle Dsouza. Vimala is pursuing an LLM in Intellectual Property Rights, Her commitment to service is demonstrated through her coordination roles in the Legal Aid Cell and her receipt of the “Praveen Hrudayaraj” award for exemplary service.

Ashelle Dsouza is a dedicated LLM student specializing in Intellectual Property Rights. She has also co-authored a published research paper on reproductive rights and gender equality.

ABSTRACT

In the age of ubiquitous digital records, the “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) has emerged as a pivotal legal and ethical concept, granting individuals the power to seek erasure or delisting of personal data from search engines and online repositories. This doctrine, crystallized under Article 17 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), aims to balance data subject privacy with competing rights such as freedom of expression and public interest. Yet its implementation faces formidable legal, technical, and normative challenges: how to draw boundaries on which content is eligible, how to adjudicate conflicting rights, and whether the right should apply extraterritorially. Moreover, the evolution of artificial intelligence, data aggregators, and decentralized platforms complicates enforcement and accountability. Ethically, the RTBF raises questions about collective memory, historical record, and the legitimacy of erasing or rewriting digital pasts. Critics caution that it may foster censorship or distort the public record; proponents contend it restores dignity and functional autonomy to individuals besieged by perpetual reputational harms. This study undertakes a doctrinal analysis, tracing jurisprudence (especially the CJEU and regional courts), statutory frameworks, and scholarly debate to articulate a coherent normative and legal framework for RTBF. It probes the scope and limits of RTBF, its tensions with freedom of speech, and the feasibility of cross-border enforcement. The analysis culminates in recommendations for calibrating RTBF in plural legal systems, ensuring that individual redress does not unduly compromise democratic values or historical integrity.

Keywords:Right to be Forgotten, Data erasure, Privacy vs. Expression, Extra- Territorial Enforcement, Digital memory

This Long article has been written by Vaibhav Yadav and co- authored by Shivam Pandey. Vaibhav and Shivam are law students Gujarat National Law University.

ABSTRACT

In an increasingly fractured global economic order, governments are reasserting their influence over markets through tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of trade protectionism. This resurgence of state-driven economic strategies presents a critical challenge for competition law regimes traditionally designed to regulate private anti-competitive behavior. The complex interplay between state-imposed trade barriers and market competition raises important questions about the scope and limits of antitrust jurisdiction in addressing market distortions originating not from firms, but from states themselves. This paper investigates the evolving dynamics between competition law and protectionist policies, focusing on how tariffs and subsidies impact market efficiency, consumer welfare, and the competitive neutrality of firms operating in transnational markets. Drawing on recent case studies, including WTO disputes and cross-border antitrust investigations, the article critically examines whether current competition law frameworks—both domestic and supranational—are adequately equipped to address these state-induced distortions. It also explores the legal and jurisdictional limits faced by antitrust authorities in regulating conduct that is sanctioned or incentivized by sovereign governments. By mapping the blurred boundary between legitimate state policy and market manipulation, this research proposes a reconceptualization of competition law that integrates principles of global economic governance, fairness, and policy coherence. The paper ultimately advocates for a more nuanced, hybrid regulatory approach that respects state sovereignty while safeguarding competitive markets in a multipolar trade environment.

This Long article has been written by Sreenidhi K.R. and co-authored by Chanchal Dagur. Sreenidhi and Chanchal are law students at CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore.

ABSTRACT

Individual autonomy has been profoundly transformed by the digital age, leading to privacy being a personal concern as well as a constitutional imperative. This study explores the origins and development of the Indian right to privacy by analyzing the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation of that right. The tension between state surveillance, corporate data capitalism, and individual liberty lies at the core of this research. The paper navigates through the growing influence of data-hungry tech corporations, the blurred lines between consent and coercion in digital spaces, and the state’s evolving role as both protector and violator of privacy. Special emphasis is placed on the Right to Be Forgotten, which has emerged as a critical digital right in the Indian context, particularly in cases where past records continue to haunt acquitted individuals or outdated data undermines reputational autonomy. By drawing from comparative global jurisprudence, including the European Union’s GDPR, France’s CNIL, and Germany’s doctrine of informational self-determination, the paper positions India within the broader matrix of international privacy norms. It examines how constitutional interpretation, in accordance with transnational principles, can reinforce democratic values in a world that is driven by surveillance. 

This paper asserts that privacy encompasses more than just the right to be left alone; it encompasses the right to control one’s digital life. Through judicial activism and constitutional reinterpretation, India has an opportunity to build a privacy regime that protects not just personal data, but the very dignity, agency, and democratic integrity of its citizens in the 21st century.

This Long article has been written by Dhatrii Singh and co- authored by Adv. Akshat Vatsya. Dhatri is a Law student at Gitarattan International Business School, Indraprastha University, Akshat is a student at UPES, Dehradun. 

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to analyze the dynamics of regulating deep fake technology in India, is state that is currently submerged by the flow of synthetic media generated by AI which makes it extremely hard to differentiate the real from fake. Deepfakes produced by GAN are dangerous to person’s reputation, the public and democratic processes, considering the example of the fake Rashmika Mandanna’s video or political campaigns in 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The paper outlines the technological advances of deep fakes, the subjective and psychological impacts associated with them, as well as the current upsurge in their use, especially in India; defamatory cases and electoral interference. It especially discusses the Indian laws that address information technology and includes the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which the author regards as insufficient as a result of their ambiguity, reactive approach, and inability to account for deepfake-related crimes. This paper, focuses on how free speech as provided by Article 19(1)(a) has to be restricted due to the grounds under Article 19(2) by the aid of cases such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).

Therefore, the rationale of the paper is to identify measures that will help the government regulate deepfakes in a way that does not infringe on the freedom of speech rights of the people. At the same time reduce the spread of fake news that has been notorious in India. It uses a benchmarking research methodology which aims at comparing indian circumstances to the global occurrences from international models like EU’s Digital Service Act & AI Act, U.S state-level disclosure laws, or stringent Chinese content control to extract the insights suited for India’s socio-cultural and digital landscape. The media literacy addressed here includes technology-based systems (AI systems for detection, blockchain, and watermarking), governmental and academic-industry partnerships, and informational campaign. It actually presents a comprehensive approach that involves the use of laws, technology and increased awareness to ensure that democracy is upheld while at the same time ensuring that security has been enhanced. To that end, this study focuses on enforcement issues and culture, which would help the policy maker to provide direction on promoting innovation and safeguarding the citizenry from the dangers of deep fake news.

This long article has been written by Nandani KumarI. She is a law student at Usha Martin University, Jharkhand. 

ABSTRACT

Intellectual property law (IPR) are legal privileges granted to a person, individual or an organization for the inventions of the mind, including inventions, symbols, names, images, artistic works and designs used in commerce. The roots of intellectual property law can be traced back to the 18th century, with a significant development occurring in 1790 when the United States enacted its first patent statute. This marked a pivotal moment in the formal recognition and legal protection of intellectual property rights. While the particular legal structures for Intellectual property safeguarding varies internationally, most jurisdictions offer safeguarding under major categories such as, trademark, copyright and patent laws. Digital marketplaces frequently involve the trade of software applications, multimedia content, e-learning modules, digital art, and private systems all of which are inherently tied to Intellectual property. These digital products derive Their value primarily from the Intellectual property embedded in them, making sturdy legal safeguarding indispensable.E-commerce platforms must implement comprehensive Intellectual property rights (IPR) policies to manage licensing, prevent violation, and facilitate legitimate trade.

This Long article has been written by Kavya Agrawal. She is a law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 

ABSTRACT

In the digital age, Cyber terrorism has become a serious and very dynamic threat to both national and international security. Cyber terrorism basically means the use of information technology to overthrow, harm, or compel governments and society, in contrast to traditional terrorism which basically depends on physical violence. With potentially disastrous results, it majorly targets critical infrastructure, including communication networks, transportation systems, water systems, and power grids. There are many events that have happened in this regard. Some notable events like the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist and the 2015 cyber-attack on Ukraine’s power grid demonstrate how these attacks have the ability to disrupt financial institutions and paralyze vital utilities.

This article basically assesses current legal frameworks that deal with the issue of cyber terrorism and looks at its complex effects. The 2001 Budapest Convention on Cyber-crime encourages collaboration on a global scale but does not provide a clear definition of cyber terrorism. Moreover, even the necessity of protecting vital infrastructure from terrorist threats in cyberspace is emphasized in UN Resolution 2341 (2017). However, several nations have also put laws into place at the national level. Although there is still a problem with definitional clarity, cyber terrorism is addressed under India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66F, which was included by the 2008 amendment. Cyber related offences are also included in the USA PATRIOT Act’s more comprehensive counterterrorism measures. Despite these initiatives, different countries continue to have different definitions and legal interpretations. 

The article also examines the main and necessary obstacles to a successful international response to cyber terrorism. The major and most significant of these is the lack of generally agreed-upon definition, which ultimately results in inconsistent legal interpretations and gaps in enforcement. These are the discrepancies which undermine international cooperation in combating cyber threats. The article suggests crucial measures to close these gaps. First, for legal systems to be consistent, a widely recognized definition of cyberterrorism must be established. Second, a specific international convention that deals with cyber terrorism is desperately needed in order to facilitate collaboration on extradition, evidence exchange, and cooperative investigations. Third, for successful enforcement, it is essential to invest in cyber forensic infrastructure and develop procedural guidelines for managing digital evidence.

To sum up, cyber terrorism presents a distinct and significant threat to both national and international stability. An anticipatory, rights-respecting, and well-coordinated legal reaction is essential. The legislation must change proactively to safeguard the digital future in a time when cyber-attacks have the power to paralyze entire countries.