Category: Blog

Khushi Dave & Vansh Bhatt
DOI:

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive jurisprudential inquiry into the evolution and structural integrity of Legal Positivism, specifically examining its role in defining the modern state’s authority. It traces the trajectory of the Separation Thesis; the conceptual disentanglement of enacted law from moral assessment; from the empirical “command theory” of John Austin to the normative hierarchies of Hans Kelsen and the sophisticated social-fact models of H.L.A. Hart. Beyond Western analytical traditions, the work explores ancient Indian antecedents, juxtaposing Vidur’s moral institutionalism with Chanakya’s pragmatic realism to highlight a perennial dialectic between ethical duty and sovereign power. The analysis further bridges the gap between legal formalism and political reality by engaging with Carl Schmitt’s decisionism and the anti-positivist rejoinders of Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller, illustrating how the “Grey Zones” of judicial discretion and political exceptions test the boundaries of legal systems. Finally, the article addresses contemporary challenges to unitary sovereignty posed by transnational legal orders, digital governance (lex informatica), and supranational integration. By examining recent developments such as India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) and “pooled sovereignty” in climate agreements, the paper argues that while the Westphalian paradigm is undergoing a metamorphosis, the positivist framework remains the essential “analytical blueprint” for navigating the complex confluence of law, power, and justice in a globalised world.

Keywords

Legal Positivism, Sovereignty, Rule of Recognition, Transnational Law, Jurisprudence

Nitya Jain
DOI:

Abstract

The facial-recognition technology, tightly integrated into modern policing procedures, has the appearance of being a dispassionate and objective enhancement of the investigative potential. Yet, at the heart of its veneer of computation, there is an underlying epistemic continuity with the discredited tradition of appearance-based criminology. In history, the effort to tell criminality by its physical appearance and most famously with Lombrosian physiognomy, collapsed due to its methodological weaknesses and inherent biases. However, in an altered form of this, the same inferential logics are reborn as algorithmic systems that translate facial features into probabilistic identifiers and suspects. The implementation of facial recognition in policing in India illustrates how the output of algorithms, despite being framed as statistical correlations, is realised as categorical truths. This is not only a technical change, but an institutional one- the probabilistic matches are promoted to actionable suspicion, usually without questioning the error rates or bias of the dataset and the validity of the methodology. By doing this, such systems pose the danger of formalising historical trends of over-police and social marginalisation into the very fabric of law enforcement. Placed in the shifting regulatory context of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the article reveals a significant regulatory loophole- although both laws enable the admission and growth of digital evidence, they are conspicuously silent on the standards of algorithmic reliability, transparency and accountability. However, eventually, the uncritical embrace of algorithmic policing can become a threat to the institutionalisation of a new kind of technologically mediated prejudice. A paradigm shift is required, shifting from uncritical adoption to principled regulation and making it clear that the legitimacy of criminal justice is not to be found in automation but in its adherence to constitutional values of fairness, accountability and justice.

Keywords

Algorithmic Bias, Facial Recognition Technology, Digital Evidence, Physiognomy, Procedural Fairness, Constitutional Accountability

Manasvi Ramnani & Krishika
DOI:

Abstract

Caste in India is a social taxonomy of power, purity and belonging and a tool of regulation that makes gendered lives in very differentiated forms. This paper will show that caste does not simply create gender; on the contrary, it constitutes gender differences by insulating Savarna femininity in terms of purity and modesty, exposing Dalit femininity to labour and vulnerability and making Dalit masculinity undeserving of dignity and equal citizenship. Based on Ambedkar, Chakravarti, Rege, Guru, Ilaiah, and others, and global theoretical approaches of Crenshaw, Bourdieu, Butler, Sen, and Spivak, the study places caste as experienced and embodied in a continuum between sexual security and labour visibility, social presence, narrative legitimacy and economic possibilities. It also looks at how caste-gender is mediated by law, media, religion, marriage patterns, labour structures as well as cultural perception. Throughout the paper, the theoretical insights are correlated with judicial changes and statistical findings to support the argument that caste abolition entails a reconstruction of gender imagination despite gender lines of dignity and equality. The real constitutional morality should then understand that the structural generation of gender by caste is one of the most profound stumbling blocks to social justice in India.

Keywords

Savarna, Dalit Feminism, Castes, Oppression, Freedom

Lena Judeson
DOI:

Abstract

The relationship between a mother and an unborn child is a convoluted line. Abortion has garnered an array of opinions due to its conflicting positions in socio-cultural and religious dimensions in society. Article 21: It is a multifaceted right, envisaging various other rights. Article 14 is another such essential guarantee; the dilemma thus here is a peculiar predicament in circumstances where there is a devolution of connection between the two bodies, i.e., where the mother wishes to abort the unborn and the life of the unborn itself. En ventre sa mere is treated as a legal person in India, and therefore, the unborn is provided with a few legal rights. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2002. Read along with Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. Do the statutes and rules, respectively, deal with the legal termination of pregnancy? Although India may be progressive when compared to other nations on this subject matter, the legislation has faced challenges and impasses that require a decisive segregation and analysis of the rights available to both the mother and the unborn.

Keywords

Abortion, Medical termination, Rights of Unborn, Reproductive freedom, Bodily autonomy

Shrestha Datta
DOI:

Abstract

When caste, gender, and disability all cross paths in one single body, it leads to a heightened cumulative vulnerability in society. This article interrogates the long-neglected question by revealing the structural silences of Indian constitutionalism and statutory laws in force, which continue to perceive these identities as discrete categories or in silos rather than interlocking systems of oppression. For the disabled Dalit, Adivasi, and other lower-caste women sitting at the crosshead of interlocking and ableist exclusion, this fragmented and isolated constitutionalism produces a profound jurisprudential invisibility. Empirical studies, parliamentary and doctrinal data, and international human rights discussions expose how lower-caste women with disabilities are rendered legally invisible – excluded by regimes that categorise and compartmentalise different forms of discrimination, thereby erasing or rather ignoring the compounded forms of discrimination. This article argues that the single-axis limitations evident in the wording of the Indian laws fail to account for the lived experiences of these women at the margins. Therefore, it exposes systemic gaps in law enforcement, data collection, survey design, and policymaking that perpetuate this invisibility. This article goes on to recognise 2 significant drawbacks. First, the absence of compounded data, second, the misinterpretation of the word “only” in statutes, and similar other linguistic gaps. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical methodology, and drawing on international frameworks such as the UNCRPD, CEDAW, and the OHCHR Guidance on intersectionality, the paper examines constitutional provisions, statutory laws, judicial decisions and empirical studies to argue for a transformative reinterpretation and calls for a paradigm shift to address cumulative harm and ensure that the most marginalized are seen, heard, and entitled to the same protection as every other person.

Keywords

Intersectionality, Gender, Caste, Disability, Invisibility

Bidisha Roy
DOI:

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance has traditionally focused on automated decision-making systems that classify, predict, and allocate resources. However, recent advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and emotionally responsive AI challenge this decision-centric regulatory model. This article examines Algorithmic Accountability through a legal lens, focusing on systems that influence emotional behaviour and process intimate personal data without producing discrete, reviewable decisions. Based on the Indian data protection and constitutional privacy framework, this article demonstrates that consent-based regulation and existing accountability mechanisms are insufficient to address emotional and generative AI. It suggests an influence-based model of algorithmic accountability that acknowledges delegated influence, structural consent failure, and accountability gaps based on comparative insights from the US and the EU. In doing so, this article reframes algorithmic accountability as a tool for regulating influence rather than merely relying on automated decisions. The article concludes that human-centric AI governance in India must move beyond data-centric regulation to protect autonomy, dignity, and trust in an age of emotional artificial intelligence.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence; Large Language Model; Affective Computing; Emotionally responsive AI; Generative AI; Deepfake; Algorithmic Accountability

Anoupama P
DOI:

Abstract

The 1946 Bhore Committee report provided that Health and well-being are a combination of mental and physical health. However, 79 years later, India still grapples with untreated mental ill-health with a recognised treatment gap of 82 – 92%. Apart from this, the NCRB data further shows a rise in suicides, especially among students and adolescents. Data further shows that mental illness can contribute to crime if left untreated for a long time or if it combines with other disorders like Substance Use Disorders (SUD). Thus, the purpose of this research is to analyse how untreated mental illness can contribute to crime and what further steps can be taken to overcome these treatment gaps. In order to explore this purpose, a combination of qualitative, analytical, and exploratory research was undertaken, and thorough analysis of psychological theories, existing legal framework, Supreme Court and High Court precedents and books of criminal psychology was undertaken. The research has brought to light the existing implementation gaps and lack of adequate facilities and funds for mental healthcare in India. Further, the research has shown the stigma surrounding mental health and the lack of awareness among the general public about mental ill-health and treatment facilities. This paper proposes an interdisciplinary research and study that combines law with mental health, as suggested by the American Psychological Association (APA), for better implementation of the existing framework and improvements in policies and facilities. Further research can focus on the eradication of public stigma and a detailed comparative analysis of India’s mental health law with that of other countries in order to implement similar models.

Keywords

Mental illness, crime, India, stigma, facilities

Mr. Ayush Rastogi
DOI:

Abstract

Cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have evolved as consequential instruments in the global corporate landscape. This comparative study elucidates the intricacies of cross-border M&A activities in India and the United States, both pivotal participants in this transformative phenomenon. By scrutinising the multifaceted aspects encompassing legal regulations, cultural disparities, economic ramifications, and strategic motivations, this research investigates the determinants influencing the outcomes of cross-border M&A in these distinct contexts. In India, the legal framework is significantly influenced by the Companies Act, 2013, the Competition Act, 2002, FEMA, and SEBI regulations. Conversely, the United States relies on the HSR Act, Antitrust laws, and federal and state regulations to govern M&A. Cultural dynamics in India emphasise relationship-building and trust, while the United States prioritises professionalism and transactional efficacy. The economic implications of cross-border M&A hinge on India’s burgeoning economy and its expanding middle class, and the United States’ mature and competitive market. Strategic considerations are pivotal for M&A success, spanning market entry, talent acquisition, and intellectual property in India, while the United States emphasises market consolidation, diversification, and innovation. This research underscores the necessity of comprehensive understanding and meticulous planning, customised to each nation’s distinct features, to navigate the intricate landscape of cross-border M&A effectively.

Keywords

Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions, Legal Framework, Cultural Differences, Strategic Considerations, Economic Implications

Mr. Ayush Mudgal & Dr. Shashank Chaturvedi

DOI:

Abstract

Judicial activism is often celebrated as a doctrine of affirmative jurisprudence, while judicial overreach represents its distortion. Both India and the United States of America (U.S.)—constitutional democracies rooted in divergent political philosophies—have grappled with defining the boundary between legitimate interpretation and judicial legislation. This paper undertakes a comparative study of judicial activism and overreach in India and the U.S., tracing their historical trajectories, constitutional foundations, and landmark case law. It argues that Indian courts, influenced by welfare-state commitments, have exercised activism expansively to fill legislative and executive gaps, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has primarily deployed activism to protect civil liberties and minority rights within a strict separation of powers framework. By offering a comparative synthesis, the paper highlights convergences, divergences, and lessons that each system may draw from the other, ultimately stressing the need for proportionality between judicial activism and restraint.

Keywords

Judicial Activism, Judicial Overreach, India & United States, Constitutional Supremacy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, Welfare Jurisprudence

Download Full Manuscript

Ms. Reva Gupta & Dr. Mudassir Nazir
DOI:

Abstract

Financial crimes, especially money laundering and the escape of economic offenders, are ongoing problems for national economies and the global financial system. This study examines and compares the laws and institutional responses of India and Australia. It focuses on India’s Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), 2018, and Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act, 2006. Through a qualitative comparison of legal provisions, enforcement methods, and cooperative frameworks, the research highlights the different ideas behind the two systems. India focuses on deterrence and asset seizure, while Australia uses a preventive, compliance-driven model. Although both systems meet Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards and emphasize international cooperation, differences in institutional independence, legal protections, and technology use greatly affect enforcement results. The paper ends with suggestions for improving India’s framework. It recommends a hybrid approach that keeps its deterrent focus while adding preventive measures taken from Australia’s model.

Keywords

Fugitive Offenders, Money Laundering Prevention, Asset Confiscation, Financial Regulation, Transnational Crime, Compliance Systems, And Financial Intelligence Units.

Mr. Saurabh Tiwari
DOI:

Abstract

This paper will critically examine India’s journey in integrating the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), which came into force on 23 March 1976, into its domestic framework, navigating the intersection of international legal regimes and local jurisprudence. Drawing on an extensive literature review, analysis of primary legislation including the Indian Constitution and human rights statutes, and evaluations of UN Human Rights Committee reports, the study appraises both India’s commitments and the gaps in enforcing the ICCPR’s provisions. Although India’s formal ratification and constitutional guarantees have established a framework for civil and political rights, challenges persist in practice, as evidenced by issues such as arbitrary detention, constraints on freedom of expression, and systemic shortcomings in protecting vulnerable communities. By critically assessing the enforcement mechanisms, this work highlights the crucial role of institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission and international oversight by the UN, detailing how these actors strive to transform formal rights into effective safeguards. Ultimately, the paper argues that bridging the gap between international human rights obligations and domestic practice is essential for ensuring justice that is accessible, accountable, and available to all. The discussion concludes with policy recommendations aimed at reinforcing legal accountability and enhancing remedial measures, thus offering a pathway toward a more inclusive and responsive justice system in India.

Keywords

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Human Rights in India, Access to Justice, Civil and Political Rights, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), International Human Rights Law, Enforcement and Compliance Mechanisms

Mr. Saurabh Tiwari
DOI:

Abstract

This paper critically examines deception detection techniques (DDTs), i.e., polygraph tests, brain mapping, and narco-analysis by analyzing their scientific foundation and legal admissibility across jurisdictions. The research explores the historical evolution of forensic psychology, tracing developments in deception detection from traditional interrogation to modern neuroscience-based evaluations. It evaluates key forensic principles used in criminal trials and their evidentiary significance. The study employs a comparative legal methodology, examining admissibility frameworks in India, the USA, the UK, and Singapore, highlighting jurisdictional variations in forensic reliance. In India, landmark cases like Selvi v. State of Karnataka affirm that involuntary administration of DDTs violates fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. In contrast, countries like the USA impose stringent scientific reliability standards, rejecting polygraph results as inadmissible. The UK and Singapore adopt a more case-specific approach, allowing forensic psychological tests under regulated procedural safeguards. Findings reveal ethical and constitutional challenges in forensic deception detection, questioning the credibility and voluntariness of confessions obtained through such techniques. The study identifies gaps in forensic regulation and calls for standardized protocols, judicial oversight, and enhanced forensic infrastructure. It recommends scientific validation of DDTs to improve legal applicability while balancing forensic innovation with privacy and self-incrimination rights. Ultimately, this research advocates judicial reform and interdisciplinary collaboration to optimize forensic psychology’s role in criminal investigations while ensuring compliance with human rights standards.

Keywords

Forensic Psychology, Deception Detection Techniques (DDTs), Narco-Analysis, Legal Admissibility of Evidence, Comparative Criminal Justice, Human Rights and Self-Incrimination, Judicial Oversight and Forensic Regulation

Ms. Mahek Rajnishkumar Bardiya
DOI:

Abstract

Redrawing electoral boundaries to account for population shifts, or delimitation, is a constitutionally required procedure that is essential to guaranteeing fair representation in India’s democratic system. This process, which is carried out by the Delimitation Commission and is governed by Articles 82 and 170 of the Indian Constitution, has far-reaching effects that go beyond simple administrative changes. It has an impact on regional equity, the distribution of political power, and the representation of identity-based groups such as minorities, castes, and ethnic groups. This paper highlights the democratic significance and changing difficulties of India’s delimitation process by critically analyzing it via constitutional and historical lenses. It looks into how differences in representation have been exacerbated by demographic dynamics, political pressures, and the delimitation freeze that has existed since the 1971 census. The conflict between the political advantages that more populous northern regions may have after 2026 and the population control successes in southern states is given special attention. The research uses a qualitative approach, integrating case law, current policy assessments, and doctrinal examination of constitutional provisions. Along with comparative insights from global practices, it delves deeper into the role of GIS mapping and data analytics as instruments to enhance delimitation efficiency and fairness. The study makes the case for changing the delimitation framework using this multidisciplinary approach in order to improve regional justice, technology integration, and transparency. In order to guarantee accountability, it suggests enhancing the Delimitation Commission’s independence and implementing participatory procedures. The paper concludes by emphasizing that effective delimitation is a democratic requirement rather than just a technical one. For the greatest democracy in the world to promote inclusive, representative, and participatory governance, it must balance demographic realities with constitutional ideals.

Keywords

GIS Mapping, Delimitation, Technology, Constitution, Obligations, Accountability

Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur & Dr. Navpreet Kaur
DOI:

Abstract

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has emerged as a cornerstone of India’s justice delivery system, addressing the persistent challenges of backlog, procedural delays, and inaccessibility within the formal courts. Among the various ADR mechanisms, Lok Adalats (People’s Courts), established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, have acquired a distinctive place due to their emphasis on conciliation, compromise, and participatory justice. The institution of Lok Adalats reflects the constitutional mandate under Articles 39A and 14 to promote equal access to justice and ensure fairness in dispute resolution. This paper examines the role and relevance of Lok Adalats in contemporary India, focusing on their contribution to expeditious and cost-effective settlement of disputes, particularly for marginalized sections of society. It examines the functioning of Lok Adalats at various levels—national, state, district, and taluka—while evaluating their effectiveness in addressing civil, matrimonial, and compoundable criminal matters. The study highlights both the strengths of Lok Adalats, such as their informality, reduced costs, and amicable settlements, as well as their limitations, including concerns regarding enforceability, lack of awareness, and instances of coercive compromises. By drawing on statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and empirical insights, the paper underscores the significance of Lok Adalats in advancing the goals of social justice, while suggesting reforms to enhance their credibility, transparency, and efficiency. Ultimately, Lok Adalats exemplify a uniquely Indian model of ADR that balances tradition with modern legal frameworks, thereby reinforcing the constitutional vision of accessible and inclusive justice.

Keywords

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Lok Adalat, Access to Justice, Legal Services Authorities Act, Social Justice

Ms. Rufi Khan
DOI:

Abstract

This research examines the complex landscape of disability rights in Jammu and Kashmir, analyzing the intersection of law, policy, and lived realities for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the region. Through a comprehensive evaluation of legislative frameworks, judicial interventions, and empirical evidence, this study reveals significant disparities between formal legal guarantees and practical implementation. This research provides an exhaustive analysis of the social, legal, and policy dimensions of disability in the region. Drawing from statutes, international law, landmark judgments, and an extensive review of empirical data and field sources, the study identifies persistent gaps between formal guarantees and lived experiences. Recommendations are advanced for effective rights realization, meaningful inclusion, and improved governance for differently-abled persons. The study argues that while India’s Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 represents progressive legislation, its implementation in conflict-affected regions like J&K requires contextualized approaches addressing cultural barriers, administrative deficits, and infrastructure limitations. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening enforcement mechanisms, enhancing community awareness, and fostering inclusive governance structures.

Keywords

Disability Rights, Jammu and Kashmir, RPWD Act 2016, Social Exclusion, Implementation Gap, Conflict and Disability, Inclusive Governance

Ms Pratibha Narwaria, Ms Nikita Patel &Ms Jahnavi Bhandari
DOI:

Abstract

India’s agrarian economy faces a dual crisis: ecological degradation resulting from decades of industrial agricultural practices and inadequate legal support for sustainable alternatives. This paper critically examines the potential of agroecology—a science-based, socially just, and ecologically resilient approach to farming—as a framework for reforming India’s agricultural legal regime. Despite policy-level efforts, such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture and schemes promoting organic farming, existing legal instruments remain fragmented, chemically oriented, and poorly aligned with sustainability goals. The study employs a doctrinal and comparative methodology, analyzing Indian statutes, including the Environmental Protection Act, Insecticides Act, Fertilizer Control Order, and the Seed Bill, alongside international instruments such as the UN FAO guidelines, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Case studies of Sikkim’s organic model and Brazil’s agroecological zoning are incorporated to highlight practical insights. Constitutional mandates under Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) are explored to frame agroecology as a legal imperative tied to the right to life and intergenerational equity. The paper identifies key legal gaps, including the lack of statutory recognition of agroecology, insufficient incentives for sustainable practices, weak enforcement mechanisms, and limited participatory governance for farmers. It proposes a multi-pronged reform agenda: the enactment of a comprehensive National Agroecology and Sustainable Farming Law, restructuring of input regulations, market-based incentives, enhanced certification frameworks, and judicial interpretation of the right to sustainable agriculture. By bridging legal theory, policy analysis, and comparative models, this paper argues for a paradigm shift in agricultural law—one that aligns India’s food systems with environmental justice, climate resilience, and constitutional values. The study contributes to the emerging discourse on green legal transitions in the Global South and offers a grounded roadmap for law and governance reform in pursuit of sustainable agriculture.

Keywords

Agroecology, Sustainable Agriculture Law, Environmental Justice, Agri-Legal Reforms, Constitutional Environmental Rights

Mr Ajay Singh Tomar, Ms Anushka Upadhyay & Dr Arun Sharma
DOI:

Abstract

The debate over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India highlights a complex intersection of constitutional values—equality, secularism, religious freedom, and cultural pluralism. Envisioned in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the UCC seeks to establish a uniform civil framework governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, replacing religion-based personal laws. While its aim is to promote legal uniformity and gender justice, it also raises concerns among minority communities about cultural erosion, majoritarianism, This paper examines whether India can uphold both equality before the law and religious autonomy in personal matters, or whether a balance must be struck. Using a doctrinal and analytical approach, it explores the treatment of UCC and secularism in constitutional texts, judicial pronouncements, and political discourse. Landmark judgments such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India are analyzed to understand the judiciary’s evolving stance. The research engages with the concept of legal pluralism, which accepts the coexistence of multiple legal systems within a single polity, and how this framework may harmonize religious diversity with constitutional goals like gender equality. Comparative insights from France, Turkey, and Tunisia are explored to assess how other secular democracies have pursued similar reforms while navigating religious sensitivities. Special attention is given to the perspectives of minority groups and women’s rights advocates, especially from Muslim and Christian communities, to illustrate the complexity of the debate. The study argues for a gradual, consultative, and pluralist reform process that addresses discriminatory practices across all personal laws rather than enforcing a uniform code. Ultimately, the paper asserts that a reimagined UCC must promote substantive equality, grounded in democratic consensus and constitutional morality, without eroding cultural identity.

Keywords

Uniform Civil Code, Secularism, Minority Rights, Legal Pluralism, Personal Laws, Equality

Ms Manvi Jain & Dr Arun Sharma
DOI:

Abstract

As markets expand globally, the friction between liberal branding options and public-morality oriented speech emerges at the forefront again, particularly in India with constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression. In light of the same, this research paper employs doctrinal and comparative analysis to examine the conflict within the context of other more recent controversies, such as the notorious CHUTIYARAM trademark case (2025), wherein an otherwise accepted mark by the Trade Marks Registry was quickly withdrawn following public outcry and accusations of moral impropriety. Further, this study makes a detailed examination of the statutory and judicial stance in India, with particular focus on Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It draws upon various real-life examples of trademarks which have proven to be offensive and derogatory, including cases on FCUK, CHUTIYARAM, Myntra logo, BOB: Baap of Bakchod, and Sanskari Sex. In reviewing these cases, this paper demonstrates inconsistent applications of Section 9(2)(c) and evidence of administrative bias by the Trademark Registry. The paper also demonstrates the inadequacies within the Trade Marks Manual and proposes a question of clarity around definitions, and substantive reform. Lastly, the research aims to critique and improve India’s trademark law, contributing to the reform agenda and constitutional dialogue. It emphasizes the need for trademark law development that preserves freedom while maintaining decency, providing a foundation for the future in the context of creative marketing.

Keywords

Offensive or Scandalous, Trademark, Morality, Freedom of Speech & Expression, and Section 9 (2)(c)

Ms. Ashi Gupta
DOI:

Abstract

This research paper critically examines the intricate landscape of patent laws and regulations governing genetically modified (GM) seeds, offering a comprehensive analysis of their legal, economic, ethical, and environmental dimensions. The study navigates the evolving legal frameworks in key jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, and India, highlighting commonalities and divergences in approaches to intellectual property protection for agricultural biotechnological innovations. It scrutinizes landmark judicial decisions that have shaped this legal terrain, revealing how courts balance proprietary interests of biotechnology corporations against broader public interest concerns, such as farmers’ rights and food security. Particular emphasis is placed on the Indian context, where the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 offers a unique alternative to conventional patent regimes, aiming to reconcile agricultural innovation with the safeguarding of farmers’ traditional rights to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seeds. Ultimately, this paper aims to contribute to the global discourse on intellectual property rights in agriculture by synthesizing diverse perspectives and proposing pathways toward more equitable, transparent, and sustainable agricultural policies that foster innovation while prioritizing food security, protecting farmers’ rights, and preserving agricultural biodiversity for future generations.

Keywords

Genetically Modified Seeds, Patent Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Agricultural Innovation, Farmers’ Rights, Food Security, Environmental Ethics