The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025, marks a decisive turning point in India’s maritime legal landscape. For nearly a century, the 1925 Act—designed for break-bulk cargo and paper-based trade—struggled to keep pace with containerisation, digital documentation, automated port systems, and modern international conventions. The new Act bridges this gap by aligning India with global standards inspired by the Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules, and by introducing clearer norms governing the rights and liabilities of carriers and cargo owners.

For decades, landmark Indian and international judgments exposed ambiguities in the old law relating to seaworthiness, liability, documentation, and multimodal transport. These judicial insights laid the foundation for reform and significantly shaped the structure of the 2025 Act.

This article outlines the key features of the Act and the major judicial decisions that influenced its evolution.

Major Features of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025

1. Updated Liability Regime

One of the most transformative changes in the 2025 Act is its modernised liability framework. The outdated, low liability limits under the old law no longer matched the realities of global trade or contemporary cargo values.

The new Act recalibrates these limits, making compensation for loss or damage more fair, predictable, and aligned with international standards such as the Hague-Visby Rules. This reduces ambiguity, minimises litigation, and enhances India’s credibility as a maritime jurisdiction equipped for modern global commerce.

2. Expanded Period of Responsibility

Under the 1925 regime, the carrier’s liability was restricted to the narrow “tackle-to-tackle” period—from loading to discharge. In today’s world of containerisation, extended port handling, and multimodal logistics, this left major gaps in accountability.

The 2025 Act significantly expands the carrier’s period of responsibility. It recognises that cargo may be vulnerable long before loading and long after unloading. This broader scope strengthens protection for shippers, reflects real-world logistics, and closes loopholes in liability.

3. Electronic Bills of Lading (e-B/L)

A particularly forward-looking reform is the legal recognition of electronic bills of lading. By adopting digital documentation—including blockchain-based e-B/Ls, electronic signatures, and digital delivery orders—the Act moves India firmly into the era of paperless maritime trade.

Key advantages include:

• Instant transfer of documents

• Reduced fraud through tamper-proof digital records

• Higher transparency, security, and traceability

This reform positions India as a digitally advanced maritime hub aligned with global trade innovations.

4. Clear Obligations for Seaworthiness

The 2025 Act strengthens the duty of carriers to provide a seaworthy vessel, expanding the concept beyond traditional physical seaworthiness. Carriers must exercise due diligence to:

• maintain and inspect the vessel,

• employ competent crew and adequate equipment, and

• ensure cargo holds and containers are safe and suitable for various cargo types.

This modern, broader definition acknowledges that seaworthiness today includes crew competence, maintenance practices, and the suitability of cargo spaces. By codifying these elements, the Act decreases ambiguity and increases accountability.

5. Stronger Rights for Shippers

The old law often created a power imbalance between carriers and shippers—especially smaller exporters lacking bargaining strength. The 2025 Act directly addresses this by introducing:

• transparent and streamlined claims procedures,

• clearer timelines for filing claims,

• better documentary clarity, and

• safeguards against unfair standard-form clauses.

These reforms empower shippers, improve their legal recourse, and foster confidence in India’s maritime dispute-resolution system—supporting the growth of exports and wider participation in global trade.

Relevant Case Law Shaping the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025

A. Indian Judicial Precedents

1. East and West Steamship Co. v. S.K. Ramalingam Chettiar (AIR 1960 SC 1058)

This landmark judgment clarified that a bill of lading is not merely a receipt but also evidence of the contract of carriage and a document of title. The Court emphasised the need for certainty in documentation—principles echoed in the 2025 Act’s recognition of electronic bills of lading. The new Act modernises centuries-old documentary practices to suit digital trade.

2. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries (1990) 3 SCC 481

The Supreme Court held that unjustified deviation from the agreed route could strip carriers of statutory protections. The ruling linked deviation with broader obligations of due diligence and seaworthiness.

This directly influenced the 2025 Act’s enhanced obligations on carriers, reinforcing that failure to comply with operational and safety standards can result in loss of liability protections.

B. Influential International Precedents

1. Homburg Houtimport BV v. Agrosin Private Ltd. (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12

This decision resolved a common ambiguity: the true identity of the “carrier.” The House of Lords held that the carrier is determined primarily by the terms and signatures in the bill of lading, not merely vessel ownership.

The clarity demanded in The Starsin is reflected in the 2025 Act’s improved documentation standards aimed at reducing carrier-identity disputes.

2. New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154

This globally influential judgment validated the use of Himalaya clauses, extending contractual protections to third parties like stevedores or terminal operators. It recognised the multi-actor nature of modern shipping.

The 2025 Act mirrors this approach by acknowledging third-party involvement in logistics and aligning liability structures with modern supply chain realities.

Why These Cases Matter for the 2025 Act

These authoritative decisions—two domestic and two international—highlighted the shortcomings of the 1925 regime: unclear documentation, ambiguous carrier identity, outdated liability limits, and insufficient recognition of modern logistics practices.

The 2025 Act incorporates these judicial insights, transforming long-standing principles into a modern, coherent, and globally aligned statutory framework.

Conclusion

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025 modernises India’s maritime law by aligning it with international standards and resolving long-standing uncertainties in carrier liability and documentation. Rooted in both global trade realities and decades of judicial interpretation, the Act broadens the carrier’s period of responsibility, updates liability rules, and embraces digital documentation. As India strengthens its role as a global shipping hub, the Act lays the foundation for a more efficient, transparent, and internationally harmonised maritime legal system.

Article written by
Sachman Gill
The University of Law, Reading U.K. (LLM final year)

Generally, the commission of a crime leads to a trial, ending in either conviction or acquittal, depending on the facts and circumstances. For centuries, legal systems have followed this process to address criminals and their deviant behaviour. However, a system that focuses only on determining guilt often overlooks a crucial aspect: the sociological and psychological factors that produce such behaviour.

This is similar to a farmer cutting wild plants without removing their roots. In both cases, the real cause remains untouched. Robert K. Merton highlighted this through strain theory. He explained that individuals pursue socially approved goals through the opportunities society provides. But when these opportunities are blocked, a “strain” emerges, pushing individuals toward deviant behaviour.

Understanding these factors is especially relevant today, as rising socio-economic disparities in India continue to shape crime patterns. NCRB data for 2022 shows that urban areas report higher crime rates than rural regions, underscoring how social and environmental conditions influence criminal behaviour. This paper examines the evolution of Merton’s theory, Agnew’s reinterpretation of it, and its relevance in understanding crime within criminal law.

FROM MERTON TO AGNEW

Merton developed strain theory to explain rising crime in the USA. Later, Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin expanded it in the mid-90s. The concept of the “American dream” is central to Merton’s work. It promotes meritocracy and equality, encouraging individuals to achieve set goals through legitimate means. Success, however, became measured largely through material wealth.

Merton used this idea to identify a flaw in the system, calling it “anomie.” He argued that when opportunities for equal achievement are blocked, individuals may turn to illegitimate means to meet societal expectations. This fuels criminal activity. Critics, however, noted that Merton’s theory focused narrowly on economic goals.

Cohen broadened the theory by introducing “status frustration.” He shifted attention from financial deprivation to psychological strain caused by social hierarchy. This helped explain crimes not motivated by material gain, such as vandalism, which challenge the very hierarchy that restricts individuals.

Cloward and Ohlin expanded the theory further by linking types of delinquency to the illegitimate opportunities available:

1. Structured criminal opportunity – arises in areas with strong adult criminal networks, where individuals learn professional crime focused on financial gain.

2. Conflict-based crime – arises in areas with less structured crime, leading to violent acts driven by status and reputation.

3. Drug-abuse crime – occurs when individuals lack both legitimate and illegitimate opportunities and turn to substance abuse as a coping mechanism.

Robert Agnew introduced the most significant changes to strain theory. He widened its scope by identifying strains arising from conditions disliked by individuals. Financial and psychological strain due to unemployment, for example, may affect both lower and middle classes. Agnew grouped strains into three types:

1. Inability to achieve goals

2. Absence of positive stimuli

3. Presence of negative stimuli

THE FIRST STRAIN: FAILURE TO ACHIEVE GOALS

Agnew’s first strain is the failure to achieve socially approved goals. Crime emerges from two pressures:

1. Society defines certain goals that mark success.

2. Structural inequality prevents some individuals from achieving them.

When legitimate paths seem blocked, individuals may turn to illegal means. For example, education and employment are common routes to status. But when unemployment rises or access to education is limited, alternative—often illegal—paths may be taken.

A 2023 report by the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council found higher crime involvement among individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, a 2004 study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry found that childhood socio-economic disadvantage significantly increased crime rates.

Legally, understanding these pressures is crucial. While Indian courts focus on mens rea, they often overlook deeper causes of crime. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, the court acknowledged that economic crimes can stem from failed aspirations and societal barriers, reflecting strain theory.

THE SECOND STRAIN: LOSS OF POSITIVE STIMULI

The second strain involves the removal of things valued by an individual, such as relationships, employment, status, or security. Unlike older theories, this explains situations where individuals have access to legitimate opportunities yet still engage in harmful behaviour.

For example, the 2023 Shraddha Walkar murder case shows how the breakdown of emotional bonds and rising conflict can lead to extreme acts. Rising cases of domestic violence and drug abuse also reveal how emotional strain shapes behaviour. NCRB (2021) reported that 33.2% of suicides among men were due to family issues and 4.8% due to marriage-related problems. A 2009 study found drug use increased with trauma.

Criminal law acknowledges emotional strain through the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation under Section 122 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined how emotional shock can erode self-control. In Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, the court highlighted the need to assess mental state during distress.

Positive stimuli can also be removed due to social breakdown. Riots, vandalism, and vigilantism often arise from institutional failures, creating collective strain.

THE THIRD STRAIN: PRESENCE OF NEGATIVE STIMULI

The third strain arises when individuals experience harmful conditions, such as abuse, discrimination, victimisation, or harassment. These negative stimuli can push individuals toward crime, especially when they are chronic rather than one-time events.

A 2024 study on hostile home environments and bullying showed that negative stimuli activate pathways leading to delinquency. Victims may feel anger and a desire for revenge, reinforcing deviant responses.

Chronic strains have stronger links to crime than sudden hardships like accidents or illness. Moon’s 2007 study confirmed that repeated victimisation creates lasting feelings of injustice.

In India, negative stimuli are pervasive—domestic violence, caste discrimination, and other forms of hostility affect people across classes and genders. A review of 137 studies found that 41% of women faced domestic violence. Another study showed that as lower-caste groups improved economically, they often faced backlash in the form of hostility.

Criminal law indirectly recognises negative stimuli through:

• Grave and sudden provocation

• Unsoundness of mind

• Self-defence, where individuals react to immediate threats

These doctrines show that external stimuli can reduce or reshape culpability.

CONCLUSION

From Merton’s concept of anomie to Agnew’s broader strain theory, it is clear that crime cannot be explained by a single factor. Human behaviour must be understood economically, socially, and emotionally. Economic loss, frustration, and harmful stimuli interact to shape criminal outcomes.

Though general strain theory offers a strong framework, it has limitations. It assumes individuals facing chronic strain will respond with crime, overlooks personal morality and social learning, and struggles to measure strain objectively. It also does not provide a direct framework for preventing crime.

As the criminal justice system evolves, it must move towards rehabilitation and restoration. Understanding strain can help identify not only intent but also root causes. This understanding strengthens pre-sentencing trials, social assessments, and policies that prevent crime before it occurs.

Article written by:
Shivam Singh Rathore
B.A. LL.B.(hons.)
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab.

Neo-banks and digital-only banking platforms are transforming India’s financial sector. These online-only banks operate without physical branches and collaborate with licensed financial institutions to offer savings accounts, payments, lending, and investment services. Their convenience and low-cost model appeal to tech-savvy consumers, but they also face unique legal and regulatory challenges, especially in India’s highly regulated financial environment.

Decoding Neo-Banks for the Indian Market

Neo-banks in India do not function under a standalone RBI license. Instead, they partner with RBI-regulated banks or NBFCs.
Jupiter and Fi Money run through licensed bank partners, while Open supports small enterprises through similar partnerships.
This innovative structure works, but it also creates a legal grey zone that needs clearer regulation.

I. Amending Regulatory Structures for Borderless Banking

A. Licensing and Supervision Gaps

The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and RBI Act, 1934, do not define or license digital-only banks.
Neo-banks operate through partnerships rather than direct licenses, reducing their independence and raising trust and compliance issues.

Case Example:
In 2021, Paytm Payments Bank received an RBI warning for KYC violations and data-storage issues. Although Paytm works through a licensed payments bank, the digital component lacked adequate regulatory oversight.

B. Branch Licensing Standards Do Not Apply

Traditional banks require RBI approval for physical branches. Since neo-banks operate without branches, applying existing rules uniformly becomes challenging.

C. Privacy and Data Security Concerns

Digital banks depend heavily on user data and AI-driven algorithms.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, seeks to regulate data use, but many neo-banks store data on cloud servers outside India. Ensuring compliance with RBI’s data-localization requirements is crucial.

Case Reference:
The WhatsApp Pay dispute centered around whether data storage policies met RBI and NPCI rules, highlighting the strict oversight applied to digital financial platforms.

II. New Liabilities in Algorithmic Lending and Digital KYC

Use of AI and Algorithms

AI tools in neo-banks are increasingly used for:
• Credit scoring
• Automated lending decisions
• AI-based KYC/AML using facial recognition, OCR, and data scraping

These methods create new types of liabilities.

A. Accountability in Algorithmic Lending

When loan approvals or rejections depend entirely on AI, responsibility becomes unclear. If an algorithm misclassifies a borrower, is the liability on the bank, the AI vendor, or the developer?

Illustrative Example:
A customer rejected by an opaque algorithm cannot know why, as current RBI frameworks do not mandate explainable AI.
This lack of transparency may violate natural justice principles under Article 14 and contradict the RBI’s Fair Practices Code.

B. Risks in Digital KYC and Identity Theft

Digital KYC systems, though efficient, are vulnerable to deepfakes, spoofing, and identity fraud.

Example — Aadhaar & e-KYC Fraud:
Several cases have surfaced where manipulated Aadhaar data enabled fraudulent account openings.
Neo-banks must ensure strict compliance with the Aadhaar Act and IT Act, 2000 to avoid criminal liability.

III. Consumer Protection and Dispute Resolution Issues

Neo-banks lack physical customer-service channels, making grievance redressal difficult.
While they fall indirectly under the RBI Ombudsman Scheme through partner banks, they are not covered directly—weakening consumer protection.

Case Reference — Razorpay-X Incident (2022):
Users faced failed transactions and lack of support, showing gaps between digital service delivery and grievance mechanisms.

IV. Cross-Border and Cybersecurity Risks

Neo-banks depend heavily on global APIs, cloud services, and third-party vendors, resulting in:
• Cross-border data transfer issues
• Increased cyber-attack exposure
• Outsourcing and vendor-risk complications

RBI Guidance:
The 2019 Master Direction on Digital Payment Security Controls makes partner banks responsible for cybersecurity—even when services are outsourced. However, enforcement remains unclear when neo-banks rely on external developers.

Case Reference — Mobikwik Data Leak (2021):
A massive alleged data breach raised concerns about inadequate cybersecurity frameworks for neo-banks and fintech players.

Conclusion

Neo-banks and digital-only banking platforms offer innovation and financial inclusivity but operate beyond traditional regulatory boundaries. As India shifts toward digital banking, issues around liability, data protection, AI usage, and consumer rights become critically important.
A balanced legal and regulatory system—covering licensing transparency, AI governance, cybersecurity, and mandatory disclosure of algorithmic decisions—is essential for responsible and sustainable digital banking in India.

Article Written by 
Pankaj Kumar Singh
BBA LLB (H), Fifth Year
Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University

Let’s admit it. Biopics are Bollywood’s current obsession. You’ve seen Sanju, Gangubai, MS Dhoni, Thalaivi, 83 and probably even Googled, “Wait, was that really how it happened?”

Biopics bring real-life drama, real-world fame, and (let’s be honest) major box office. But behind the glitz and slow-motion shots is a question nobody’s asking loud enough:

Can Bollywood just tell your story without your permission? And what if they get it wrong?

The answer isn’t that simple.

Enter: Image Rights & the Indian Legal Vacuum

In countries like the US, there is a clearly defined right to publicity. Your face, name, life, your brand, can’t just be used without permission.

But in India? Image rights aren’t codified yet. You’re stuck navigating a patchwork of:

• Article 21 (Right to Privacy)

• Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech)

• Defamation laws

• Some “passing off” from Trademark jurisprudence

So yes, you might be able to sue if a movie distorts your life story. But there’s no Biopic Permission Form filmmakers need to submit. It’s a grey zone, and Bollywood loves grey zones.

Real Cases, Real Drama

• Sanju: A sanitized portrayal? Critics thought so.

• The Dirty Picture: Said to be based on Silk Smitha’s life, her family wasn’t happy.

• Jhund: Faced legal action from the person it was based on, over alleged misrepresentation.

• Main Atal Hoon: Created buzz over consent and political leanings.

In most cases, filmmakers argue for creative liberty. Families argue about misrepresentation. And the court? Usually stuck somewhere in the middle.

I read Arpan Banerjee’s paper, ‘Copyright Piracy and the Indian Film Industry’, which points out that India’s copyright and IP frameworks are often shaped more by international politics and economic strategy than by moral or cultural consistency.

Key takeaways for the biopic context:

• India is a major IP creator in films, unlike pharma where we import IP. Protecting our own stories should be a national interest.

• There is widespread moral skepticism towards IP rights in India with many still seeing them as “Western concepts” forced by TRIPS and WTO.

• The legal system often prioritizes pragmatism over perfection. Enforcement is inconsistent, and industry strategies fill the legal gaps.

• Most Indian IP discourse lacks a bottom-up perspective – we don’t often hear from the artists, families, or individuals affected by portrayals in cinema.

In short, when it comes to biopics, the line between protection and freedom isn’t drawn by statute but in courtrooms, headlines, and moral arguments.

The Tug of War: Freedom of Expression vs Image Rights

Imagine you’re a public figure. A movie is made about you without consent. It distorts events. You’re angry. Can you sue?

• The filmmaker might say: “It’s satire/art/fiction!” (protected under Article 19(1)(a))

• You might say: “It’s false and harmful!” (protected under Article 21 and defamation law)

• The court might say: “Uhh… let’s talk settlement.”

This classic legal tension: Free speech vs Right to privacy.

India doesn’t have a clear “balancing test” yet. Courts go case by case. Meaning: There is no single ‘rulebook’ for biopic legality in India.

What Could Make It Better?

1. Consent Clause for Biopics: Just like brand contracts, filmmakers should get consent or at least try to.

2. Posthumous Personality Rights: Families should have a say in how their late loved ones are portrayed.

3. Standard Disclaimers Aren’t Enough: “This is a work of fiction” doesn’t absolve all legal risks if viewers can identify the real person.

4. Regulatory Oversight: A content board or ethics council to vet sensitive biopics before release.

Final Take

Bollywood is rewriting history one biopic at a time. Some get it right. Some glamorize. Some rewrite it entirely.

But at the heart of it all is a simple question: Whose story is it anyway?

In the absence of structured image rights law in India, every biopic becomes a legal experiment in creativity vs consent. Courts are still figuring out how to handle it.

Until then, if you ever get famous (manifesting), just remember: your story might hit the big screen someday. Whether or not you approve.

Written by
Yamini Kaira

The passage of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, by the Indian Parliament marks a watershed moment in the country’s approach to digital gaming regulation. Approved by both the Lok Sabha on August 20 and the Rajya Sabha on August 21, 2025, this comprehensive legislation represents the Union government’s first attempt at creating a unified national framework for the online gaming industry.

The law introduces sweeping changes that will reshape India’s ₹3.8 billion gaming ecosystem. It completely prohibits real money gaming while simultaneously promoting e-sports and educational gaming platforms.

Legal Framework and Constitutional Considerations

Federal versus State Jurisdiction

One of the most significant legal challenges surrounding the Online Gaming Bill 2025 concerns the constitutional distribution of powers between the Union and state governments. The legislation operates in a complex constitutional landscape where “betting and gambling” traditionally fall under Entry 34 of the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This arrangement has historically given states exclusive authority to regulate gambling activities within their territories.

Legal experts have raised serious concerns about the Union government’s legislative competence to enact such comprehensive gaming regulations. Jay Sayta, a prominent Mumbai-based lawyer specializing in gaming and technology laws, has formally written to President Droupadi Murmu. He urged her to withhold assent and return the Bill to Parliament for reconsideration under Article 111 of the Constitution.

His objections center on three principal constitutional issues: legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and disregard for established judicial precedents.

The government’s justification for central legislation relies primarily on the extra-territorial nature of online gaming platforms and the need for uniform national regulation. As outlined in the Bill’s provisions, the legislation applies not only to gaming services offered within India but also to those “operated from outside India if such services are accessible in India.” This extra-territorial reach aims to address the borderless nature of digital platforms that often operate from offshore jurisdictions.

Fundamental Rights Implications

The blanket prohibition on online money games raises significant concerns regarding fundamental rights protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or business.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized skill-based games as distinct from gambling and protected under this constitutional provision. However, the new legislation defines “online money games” broadly to include any game played for stakes, regardless of whether it involves skill or chance.

This definitional approach effectively criminalizes skill-based games such as rummy, fantasy sports, and even online chess competitions that involve monetary stakes. Legal experts argue this represents an arbitrary and disproportionate restriction that fails to meet the constitutional tests laid down under Article 19(6). The legislation’s broad sweep could potentially impact thousands of professionals working in game development, legal services, marketing, and related fields.

Regulatory Structure and Implementation Mechanisms

Establishment of Central Gaming Authority

The Online Gaming Bill 2025 establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework centered around a new national authority for online gaming oversight. This central body will handle multiple critical functions including game categorization and registration, determining whether games qualify as money games, handling complaints and grievances, and issuing guidelines to ensure legal compliance.

The Authority’s mandate extends beyond prohibition. It includes positive regulatory functions such as coordinating policy support for legitimate gaming sectors, supporting the development of e-sports and social gaming, and ensuring uniform national-level legal oversight.

This regulatory approach represents a significant shift from the previous fragmented system, where individual states had varying approaches to gaming regulation.

Enforcement and Penalty Structure

The legislation introduces severe penalties to ensure compliance with its provisions. For primary offenses involving the offering or facilitation of online money games, violators face imprisonment of up to three years and fines of up to ₹1 crore.

Advertising or promoting prohibited games carries penalties of up to two years imprisonment and fines of up to ₹50 lakh. Financial institutions and payment intermediaries that facilitate transactions related to money games face similar penalties.

The Bill also includes enhanced penalties for repeat offenders, with imprisonment terms extending from three to five years and fines reaching up to ₹2 crore. Notably, offenses under key sections are designated as cognizable and non-bailable, meaning police can arrest without warrants, and bail is not a guaranteed right.

This enforcement structure reflects the government’s determination to eliminate online money gaming entirely, rather than merely regulate it.

Corporate Liability and Due Diligence Standards

The legislation extends criminal liability beyond individual operators to include corporate entities and their officers. Companies and their executives will be held accountable for offenses.

However, the law offers specific protections for independent and non-executive directors who can demonstrate that they acted with due diligence and were not involved in daily operations. This ensures corporate structures cannot be used to evade responsibility while protecting genuinely independent board members.

Economic and Industry Impact Analysis

Sectoral Disruption and Job Market Effects

The implementation of the Online Gaming Bill 2025 is expected to cause major disruption to India’s established gaming industry. The sector has attracted significant venture capital from firms like Tiger Global and Peak XV Partners.

Industry bodies warn that the blanket ban on real money games could eliminate over 200,000 jobs, force the closure of approximately 400 companies, and severely impact India’s digital innovation ecosystem. The sector, previously valued at ₹2 lakh crore, with ₹31,000 crore in revenue and ₹20,000 crore in taxes, faces what industry leaders describe as a “death knell.”

The government, represented by MeitY Secretary S Krishnan, emphasizes drawing “a line between innovation and exploitation.” Officials estimate that about 45 crore people lose nearly ₹20,000 crore annually in online real money gaming, justifying the ban as essential for consumer protection.

However, this economic rationale conflicts with industry arguments that skill-based gaming is a legitimate business activity deserving constitutional protection.

Promotion of Alternative Gaming Sectors

While strictly prohibiting money gaming, the legislation actively promotes e-sports and educational gaming. E-sports receive formal recognition as a legitimate competitive sport. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports will develop guidelines and standards for tournaments, training academies, research centers, and technology platforms.

The government plans to launch incentive schemes and awareness programs to integrate e-sports into broader national sports policies.

The Bill also provides for the recognition and registration of online social games. These platforms will focus on safe, age-appropriate educational and social games aligned with Indian cultural values. This dual approach aims to retain the positive aspects of digital gaming while eliminating harmful practices.

Conclusion

The Online Gaming Bill 2025 is a bold but controversial step in regulating India’s fast-evolving digital gaming landscape. While the legislation clearly defines the boundary between prohibited money gaming and encouraged e-sports, it also faces serious legal and constitutional challenges.

The Bill’s blanket ban approach raises questions about proportionality, constitutional validity, and economic consequences. Legal experts foresee prolonged litigation, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the gaming industry faces an uncertain transition that could fundamentally reshape India’s digital entertainment sector.

The success of this legislation depends not just on legal endurance, but also on its practical effectiveness in protecting consumers while promoting legitimate innovation. The coming months will be critical as stakeholders deal with implementation hurdles and the broader impacts on India’s digital economy become clearer.

The Bill’s journey could set a precedent for how India balances innovation and consumer protection in other emerging digital sectors.

Submitted by:
Vikash Kumar Raj
(Student at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow)

With the rise of mass media, advertisements, and digital platforms, the image and identity of celebrities have become valuable commercial assets. India, despite having numerous celebrities whose names and likenesses often face unauthorized use, has been relatively slow in legally recognizing and protecting celebrity rights. This article explores the intersection between celebrity rights, privacy, and intellectual property laws in India. It analyzes existing legal frameworks such as trademark and copyright law, evaluates their applicability and limitations in protecting publicity rights, and highlights judicial efforts towards recognizing celebrity rights as distinct legal entitlements. Finally, the paper addresses the pressing need for clear statutory provisions to comprehensively safeguard the modern-day interests of celebrities.

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary India, celebrities enjoy not only fame but also tremendous commercial value attached to their personal identity—names, images, voices, and signatures. However, with this popularity arises the challenge of unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties. While the legal system offers some degree of protection through intellectual property rights (IPR) such as trademarks and copyrights, the protection suffers from significant gaps when it comes to “right of publicity,” a unique right that enables celebrities to control and monetize the commercial use of their persona.

The concept of publicity rights evolved from the broader “right to privacy,” itself recognized as implicit in the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This paper aims to examine the current state of celebrity rights in India, the judicial landscape, and the applicability and limitations of existing IPR laws in this regard. It also discusses landmark cases and proposes a road map towards better protection for celebrity rights.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

The recognition and protection of celebrity rights in India have evolved considerably, shaped primarily by judicial decisions rather than specific legislation. Traditionally, Indian law did not explicitly acknowledge personality rights as a distinct category. This began to change with landmark rulings that increasingly emphasized the control individuals have over their identity, image, and commercial exploitation.

A pivotal early case was R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), popularly known as the Auto Shankar case. Here, the Supreme Court upheld that the right to privacy, implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the ability to prevent unauthorized use of one’s name or image for publicity without consent. This case laid the foundation for the development of personality and publicity rights in India, recognizing privacy as a ‘right to be let alone.’

Subsequent cases further expanded this framework:

• In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2005), the Delhi High Court clarified that publicity rights arise from the right to privacy and are exclusive to individuals, not transferable to corporations or event organizers. This ruling emphasized that the commercial exploitation of identity is a personal right protected constitutionally under Articles 19 and 21.
• The Delhi High Court’s decision in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2011) formally recognized the right of publicity as the ‘right to control commercial use of human identity.’ This case outlined key elements constituting infringement, such as the validity of the claimant’s identity rights and the identifiability of the celebrity.
• The Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015) case echoed these principles, ruling that celebrities who have achieved distinctive status are entitled to special protection of their personality rights. Significantly, the court held that proof of falsity or deception is not necessary to establish infringement if the celebrity is clearly identifiable.
• More recently, the Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. (2022) case marked a watershed moment by granting an injunction against unauthorized use of the actor’s voice, name, and image, enforcing an ad interim John Doe order to prevent digital infringement in scams. This precedent reflects the judiciary’s proactive stance on celebrity rights in the face of modern challenges like online misuse and identity theft.

The evolution of celebrity rights in India is thus incremental and jurisprudential, deriving from constitutional privacy and dignity rights and extending into intellectual property law. However, unlike in some common law countries where explicit statutory rights of publicity exist, India largely relies on case law, leading to inconsistencies and legal ambiguities.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF CELEBRITY AND PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

Though Indian law does not explicitly define personality or publicity rights in statute, the Indian Constitution offers strong protection through broader fundamental rights, especially under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to privacy, thereby providing a constitutional foundation for personality rights.

Right To Privacy Under Article 21

The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. Justice Chandrachud, in his leading opinion, acknowledged privacy as central to human dignity and personal autonomy. This recognition entails a person’s control over their identity—including name, image, and personal information—and how these are used or disclosed publicly.

The judgment underscores that privacy protects an individual’s “decisional privacy,” or the freedom to make certain choices about their personal identity without external interference. This includes control over commercial or public use, thus supporting emerging personality rights in India.

Rights Enshrined In Articles 14 And 19

Alongside Article 21, Article 14 ensures equality before the law, protecting all individuals’ personality rights equally, and Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. These rights require a balanced approach when personality rights conflict with others’ freedom of expression, such as media reporting or artistic performance.

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS

The Auto Shankar case (R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994) was a foundational ruling where the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy includes the right to prevent the unauthorized commercial exploitation of one’s name or image. The Court ruled that publication of personal life stories without consent could violate privacy unless it involves the public record or public interest.

The ICC Development Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2005) case reinforced that publicity rights emanate from privacy and human dignity entrenched under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that these rights are personal and protectable against unauthorized commercial use.

LANDMARK INDIAN CELEBRITY RIGHTS CASES

1. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (2022)

This case is groundbreaking in Indian celebrity rights law. Amitabh Bachchan filed suit against unauthorized commercial exploitation of his identity—voice, image, and name—by entities running fraudulent lottery schemes. The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction and a John Doe order, preventing anonymous future infringements.

This ruling recognized publicity rights as enforceable, grounded in constitutional privacy and intellectual property principles. It marked the first time in India that a court preemptively blocked all unidentified infringers to protect a celebrity against widespread digital misuse, acknowledging the commercial value of a public figure’s personality.

2. Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

Karan Johar won a permanent injunction against a film titled Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar that used his name and persona without consent in a way that could mislead the public into believing he endorsed it. The Bombay High Court emphasized his personality and publicity rights as proprietary rights deserving strong protection beyond trademark or copyright laws.

The court noted that even a CBFC certification or disclaimers did not exempt unauthorized use of celebrity names. This judgment reinforced that creators bear responsibility when using real persons’ names or likenesses.

3. Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors. (Sushant Singh Rajput Case, 2021)

Following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, his father sought injunctions against the use of his son’s image and life story in films and media without permission, invoking personality rights.

The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction but affirmed the complex dilemma of balancing posthumous personality rights with freedom of speech and public interest. This case highlighted challenges in extending personality rights after death, a legal area still emerging in India.

4. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store & Ors. (Jackie Shroff Case, 2024)

Jackie Shroff successfully opposed unauthorized AI-generated videos and social media content that mimicked his voice and image for commercial promotions. The Delhi High Court ruled that the celebrity’s exclusive right to control their identity’s commercial use was violated and granted a permanent injunction.

This ruling reflects courts’ responsiveness to new technological challenges such as deepfake videos, confirming the adaptability of personality rights jurisprudence.

5. Rajat Sharma v. Ashok Venkatramani (2019)

Award-winning TV journalist Rajat Sharma sued against defamatory advertisements falsely linking him to a product. The Delhi High Court held that unauthorized use causing harm to reputation infringed his publicity rights.

This case showed that personality rights also encompass protection against misleading or harmful commercial associations.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES IN INDIAN CELEBRITY RIGHTS

Trademark Law and Celebrity Names

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 enables celebrities to register their names, signatures, logos, or catchphrases as trademarks, providing some legal control over commercial use. Famous Bollywood actors such as Shahrukh Khan (trademarking “SRK”) and Akshay Kumar (“Khiladi”) have secured trademarks protecting their brand identity. Trademark law helps celebrities prevent others from using confusingly similar marks that might mislead consumers.

However, trademark protection is limited because it requires proof of a likelihood of consumer confusion or deception. It does not inherently cover all unauthorized uses of a celebrity’s identity, particularly cases where no direct confusion arises but commercial gain is unfairly reaped. Trademark law also faces challenges in addressing shared common names, as seen in Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. where no violation was found despite name usage overlap.

Copyright and Performers’ Rights

Copyright law protects original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, or musical works, but it does not explicitly extend to a celebrity’s voice, image, or likeness. While performers in India have moral rights under the Copyright Act, these do not currently provide comprehensive or immediate protection for personality rights, particularly in the digital age.

Cases like Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi illustrate courts extending protection beyond traditional copyright for unauthorized commercial use of voice and image, highlighting a judicial readiness to recognize publicity rights as separate from copyright. Nonetheless, legislators have yet to clearly codify performers’ personality rights within copyright law.

Passing Off And Tortious Protection

Courts have also invoked passing off—a common law tort used to prevent misrepresentation in trade—for celebrity rights protection. Where trademark law falls short, passing off claims enable celebrities to seek remedies against unauthorized exploitation of their persona creating false endorsements.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in B.D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010) involving singer Daler Mehndi is a landmark where passing off protected his personality rights against unauthorized merchandise use. This tort gives an equitable remedy but is fact-intensive and limited in scope regarding publicity rights.

DIGITAL CHALLENGES AND EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE

With digital and AI technologies proliferating, celebrity rights face unprecedented challenges like deepfake videos, voice synthesis, and online impersonation. Cases involving AI-generated content violating Jackie Shroff’s rights signal the need for expanding legal coverage.

While the Indian IP regime currently lacks dedicated celebrity rights laws, increasing judicial interventions suggest a shift towards broader recognition and future legislative reform to accommodate the complexities of modern digital identity rights.

COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CELEBRITY RIGHTS

United States

The United States leads in recognizing and protecting the right of publicity as a distinct and transferable property right, often codified in state statutes. It protects celebrities from unauthorized commercial use of their identity and enables them to license or exploit these rights economically. Federal laws such as the Lanham Act offer remedies against false endorsement or misleading commercial use.

Notable features include:

• Broad scope covering name, image, voice, signature, and other attributes of personality.
• Protection is generally transferable and inheritable.
• Strong legal remedies such as injunctions, damages, and criminal penalties.
• Growing judicial recognition of challenges posed by digital media and AI.

United Kingdom

In the UK, explicit publicity rights are not recognized as a separate legal concept. Instead, celebrities rely on a patchwork of protections:

• Copyright law protects original works like photographs but not personality rights per se.
• Passing off and malicious falsehood torts give limited recourse against unauthorized use that misleads consumers.
• Strong advertising codes self-regulate celebrity endorsements but lack statutory enforceability.
• Courts emphasize balance between commercial interests, freedom of expression, and public interest.

European Union

The EU has no harmonized right of publicity, but member states provide various protections:

• Germany, France, and other countries offer personality rights rooted in privacy/dignity concepts, often codified in civil law.
• Copyright law protects celebrity images as artistic works.
• EU data protection rules like the GDPR also impact personal data usage and consent.
• Some civil law jurisdictions allow injunctive relief and monetary damages for unauthorized use.

India’s Position

India, in contrast, has yet to enact dedicated legislation protecting celebrity personality rights. Reliance on constitutional privacy rights and IP law leaves gaps in clarity and enforcement.

Recent judicial decisions increasingly acknowledge a personality/publicity right concept but lack the comprehensive statutory framework present in the US or parts of Europe.

Internationally, the US model stands out for clear statutory recognition and expansive protection of celebrity rights as economic property. The UK exemplifies a cautious, case-by-case approach with limited statutory supplements. The EU offers a mixed civil law-data protection framework.

India’s development is ongoing, seeking to balance constitutional rights, freedom of expression, and commercial interests under existing legal structures.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CELEBRITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

India currently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework dedicated exclusively to celebrity personality and publicity rights. Protection is pieced together from constitutional privacy rights, trademark and copyright laws, tort law, and judicial precedents. This fragmented legal landscape creates uncertainty and limits effective enforcement, especially in the contemporary digital environment where unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of celebrity personas have become rampant.

Need for a Dedicated Celebrity Rights Protection Act

To address growing complexities, there is a pressing need for a well-defined celebrity rights act that explicitly codifies personality and publicity rights as proprietary interests. Such legislation should include:

• Clear definitions of personality and publicity rights, encompassing name, image, voice, signature, and other identifying traits.
• Recognition of celebrity rights as transferable and inheritable property, allowing control and commercial licensing during and after life.
• Regulatory provisions targeting emerging technologies including AI-generated content (deepfakes), cybersquatting, NFTs, and unauthorized merchandising.
• Enforcement mechanisms with statutory injunctions, damages, and criminal penalties for infringement to deter misuse effectively.
• Balancing personality rights with freedom of expression and media, ensuring legitimate journalism, artistic expression, and public interest are not unduly hampered.
• Fair compensation principles for celebrities whose identity is commercially exploited.
• Posthumous protection to safeguard celebrity legacies and prevent exploitation of deceased personalities beyond death.

Amendments to Existing IP Laws

Revising and harmonizing existing laws can complement dedicated legislation:

• The Trade Marks Act should explicitly recognize personal names, social media handles, and catchphrases as protectable marks without stringent confusion requirements.
• The Copyright Act should expand performers’ rights to protective personality elements explicitly, including moral rights over images and voices.
• Specific provisions addressing digital impersonation and synthetic media misuse must be integrated into IP laws.

International Harmonization and Best Practices

India could benefit from adopting principles and mechanisms from leading jurisdictions, particularly:

• The US model of clearly defined and enforceable right of publicity, with licensing and posthumous rights.
• The UK’s balanced approach leveraging passing off and defamation laws alongside media regulatory codes.
• EU’s incorporation of privacy, data protection, and personality rights within civil law frameworks.

Doing so would elevate India’s IP regime to cope with digital commercialization and protect celebrity branding adequately.

Strengthening Industry and Contractual Practices

Legal reforms should be supplemented by industry self-regulation and contractual safeguards:

• Celebrities and brands should adopt robust endorsement agreements clearly defining permissible use and consent.
• Advertising codes like those from the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) should be strengthened and made more effective.
• Industry education efforts must raise awareness about legal rights and remedies among celebrities, agents, and creators.

Conclusion

Celebrity rights in India represent a crucial intersection of privacy, dignity, and intellectual property rights adapted to modern commercial realities. Despite the slow development of statutory law, judicial decisions have progressively recognized publicity rights as enforceable claims derived primarily from the constitutional right to privacy and personal dignity.

Existing trademark and copyright laws offer partial but incomplete protection, reflecting significant gaps amid rapid technological and social changes. The landmark Amitabh Bachchan case marks a hopeful turning point by affirming the economic and moral worth of celebrity personality rights.

There is a clear and urgent need for dedicated legislative intervention in India to codify and expand the protection of celebrity rights, aligning them with constitutional guarantees and global best practices. Stronger laws and enforcement will ensure that celebrities can control, protect, and benefit from their identities in the digital age, preserving their fundamental rights and commercial interests.

References

1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632: AIR 1995 SC 264.
2. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del).
3. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).
4. Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd., CS no. 361 of 1997.
5. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr., CS(COMM) 395/2017.
6. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors., CS(COMM) 819/2022.
7. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, Madras High Court, 2015.
8. Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., Delhi High Court, 2021.
9. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store & Ors., Delhi High Court, 2024.
10. Rajat Sharma v. Ashok Venkatramani, Delhi High Court, 2019.
11. Daler Mehndi v. Baby Gift House, Delhi High Court, 2010.
12. Mirandah, “India: Preserving Celebrity Rights Through Intellectual Property Rights,” 2025.
13. Neeti Niyaman, “Personality Rights in India: Laws & Key Cases,” 2025.
14. Legal Bites, “Protection of Celebrity/Personality Rights in India,” 2025.
15. Bar & Bench, “Personality rights from Amitabh Bachchan to Sushant Singh,” 2023.
16. Lakshmishri, “Personality Rights: Protection under IP Laws,” 2025.
17. Manupatra, “Celebrity Rights: Protection under IP Laws,” 2011.
18. Kankrishme, “Bombay High Court Upholds Karan Johar’s Personality Rights,” 2025.

Devina Singh
Final Year Student
Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 was enacted to modernize and reform the Indian Penal Code. However, despite its progressive vision, it still contains certain legal gaps—one of the most concerning being its approach to sexual offences.

This article critically analyses a major flaw in the code: its failure to recognize men and transgender individuals as victims of rape and sexual harassment. It highlights the urgent need for gender-neutral and inclusive reforms that align with the principles of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Introduction

“यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः”

This Sanskrit phrase from the Mahabharata means that justice (dharma) and true victory are inseparable.

If the Indian criminal justice system aims to achieve its true constitutional purpose—equality before the law—it must become blind to gender. Only then can true justice and victory be achieved.

Despite the reformative goals of the BNS, 2023, Section 63 (Rape) and Section 75 (Sexual Harassment) remain non-gender-neutral. Males and transgender victims are left without any legal recourse or recognition. There is an urgent need for a stronger and more inclusive legal framework.

Recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee

The Justice Verma Committee (2012) recommended adopting a gender-neutral approach to sexual violence laws. However, its suggestions were not fully implemented in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

The committee strongly advocated for gender-neutral provisions in the Indian Penal Code, which could have been incorporated into the BNS. Unfortunately, the legislature failed to consider these recommendations while enacting the new code.

Societal Silence and Psychological Trauma

Male and transgender victims of sexual violence face a double burden—a lack of legal protection and deep social stigma.

Traditional notions of masculinity discourage men from reporting sexual crimes. Many fear being perceived as weak or less masculine, which leads to silence and emotional distress.

Similarly, transgender individuals face discrimination and identity bias, which prevents them from speaking about their experiences. The lack of legal recognition and societal empathy often leads to psychological trauma, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Breach of Constitutional Trust

The law currently penalizes any person who commits sexual harassment or rape against a minor, irrespective of gender, under the POCSO Act, 2012. However, no such protection exists for adult male or transgender victims.

Transgender individuals were recognized as the third gender in the landmark judgment NALSA v. Union of India (2014), which granted them fundamental rights. Yet, there is still no legal safeguard to protect them from sexual violence.

This gap in the BNS framework violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination based on sex. It also infringes upon the human rights of male and transgender victims to live with dignity and safety.

Global Perspective

Globally, countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia have already enacted gender-neutral sexual assault laws. These nations focus on the principle of consent, regardless of gender.

India, however, still lags behind in adopting a similar inclusive approach. Aligning with global standards will not only promote equality but also strengthen public trust in the justice system.

Suggestions

The solution is straightforward—enact and enforce gender-neutral laws as suggested by the Justice Verma Committee.

Examples from countries like the UK and Canada show that sexual assault laws based on lack of consent, not gender, are more effective and just. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita must also prioritize consent and equality over gender in defining sexual crimes.

Conclusion

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has failed to adopt gender-neutral rape and sexual harassment provisions. The Indian government must urgently amend Sections 63 and 75 to ensure inclusivity and equality.

India’s Constitution and several international covenants recognize the universal right to dignity and safety, regardless of gender. Ensuring gender-neutral sexual offence laws is not just a legal necessity—it is a moral imperative.

Article written by 
Sahil Sharma
University Institute of Legal Studies, HPU Shimla, 171004

Homebuyers in India’s real estate sector often face serious risks. Many invest their life savings in projects that stall due to developer defaults. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has evolved through amendments and judicial scrutiny to protect these homebuyers.

The recognition of homebuyers as financial creditors under the IBC ensures their participation in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, the system also includes threshold requirements to prevent misuse.

This article examines those thresholds, Section 238’s overriding effect on the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), key case laws, and their impact on equity in insolvency resolutions.

The Threshold for Initiating CIRP: Balancing Access and Preventing Frivolous Claims

The case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) was a turning point. It challenged the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, which explicitly included homebuyers (allottees) as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC.

Developers argued that this violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300-A. They claimed it unfairly equated homebuyers with financial institutions and might lead to misuse of insolvency proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in a detailed judgment by Justice R.F. Nariman, dismissed these challenges. It held that the amendment was neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. The Court explained that payments made by homebuyers have the commercial effect of borrowing, as they fund projects upfront in return for future possession—similar to loans with interest implications.

This ruling closed a legal gap that had left homebuyers without remedies before the amendment. The Court recognized that most homebuyers are genuine investors seeking possession, not speculative gains.

The 2020 Amendment and the Minimum Threshold

The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2020 introduced a new threshold for homebuyers to file CIRP applications under Section 7.
It required at least 100 allottees or 10% of the total allottees in a project, whichever is lower.

This change aimed to filter out individual or frivolous claims that could disrupt developers and other stakeholders. Previously, even one homebuyer could trigger CIRP.

In Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court upheld this threshold. The Court noted that homebuyers form a distinct class due to their socio-economic vulnerabilities. Unlike banks, they lack bargaining power and often invest without full knowledge.

The Court held that the rule is non-discriminatory because it applies equally to all homebuyers. It protects collective interests and reduces the risk of misuse by a small minority.

A transitional provision allowed pending cases below the threshold to be amended within 30 days. The Court also observed that the rule aligns with the IBC’s objectives—efficient resolution and value maximization.

Section 238: Establishing IBC’s Overriding Effect for a Unified Framework

Section 238 of the IBC includes a non-obstante clause, stating that its provisions override any conflicting laws.
This ensures the IBC’s primacy in insolvency matters, even over laws like RERA.

While RERA offers consumer protections such as refunds and compensation, it lacks a complete resolution mechanism. Section 238 prevents conflicting outcomes by stopping parallel proceedings under RERA once CIRP begins.

This creates a unified insolvency framework. Homebuyers’ status as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) remains valid, even if they hold RERA decrees.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this in multiple judgments, ensuring consistency and predictability.

Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2019): Strengthening Homebuyer Protections

In Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2019), over 42,000 homebuyers affected by the Amrapali Group’s fraud sought justice.
The Supreme Court found major irregularities, including fund diversion, misuse of RERA registrations, and collusion by banks.

The Court ordered cancellation of RERA registrations, attachment of assets, forensic audits, and criminal investigations.
It prioritized homebuyers’ interests by directing the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete pending projects.

This judgment became a landmark, reaffirming that fraud cannot be perpetuated against vulnerable investors. It set strong precedents for protecting homebuyers and holding developers accountable.

Subsequent Rulings and Innovations: Reverse CIRP and Beyond

Later cases built on these principles. In Vishal Chelani v. Debashis Nanda (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that homebuyers with RERA refund decrees remain within the same creditor class under the IBC.
Differentiating them would be inequitable. The Court reaffirmed Section 238’s overriding effect, maintaining uniformity in insolvency proceedings.

Another major development was Reverse CIRP, first recognized in Flat Buyers Association v. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (2020).
This mechanism allows promoters or creditors to fund project completion without full insolvency, focusing on protecting homebuyers’ interests.

In Indiabulls ARC v. Ram Kishore Arora (2023), this principle extended to project-wise resolutions, balancing creditor rights and preventing contagion.
However, in Arun Kumar v. Sripriya Kumar (2023), the Court restricted its use when promoters were responsible for delays.

The 2025 IBBI Amendments: Strengthening the Framework

The 2025 IBBI Amendments further improved homebuyer protections.
Key updates include:

• Regulation 4E: RPs can hand over possession during CIRP with CoC approval.

• Regulations 16C and 16D: Introduced facilitators for homebuyer sub-classes, ensuring better representation.

• Regulation 18(4): Authorities like GNIDA can attend CoC meetings as non-voting participants.

• Regulation 30C: Mandates timely reporting on development rights.

• Regulation 38(4): Establishes Monitoring Committees for implementation oversight.

These reforms enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in insolvency processes.

Implications for Equity in CIRP

Recognizing homebuyers as financial creditors ensures that vulnerable investors gain representation in the CoC and a voice in resolution plans.
This approach shifts focus from liquidation to revival and equitable recovery.

However, as unsecured creditors, homebuyers often rank below secured lenders.
Judicial interventions continue to address this imbalance and ensure fairness.

Overall, the evolving legal framework builds trust in the real estate sector while promoting balanced stakeholder protection.

Conclusion: Building a Fairer Framework for Homebuyers

The evolution of homebuyers’ rights under the IBC marks a defining chapter in India’s real estate and corporate law.
From being powerless victims to empowered creditors, their journey reflects judicial and legislative progress.

Landmark cases like Pioneer Urban, Manish Kumar, and Bikram Chatterji shaped the foundation of a fair and functional system.
The introduction of thresholds and the overriding effect of Section 238 promote collective action and legal clarity.

Innovations like Reverse CIRP and the 2025 IBBI Amendments further reinforce transparency and accountability.
Although challenges remain, the IBC framework today stands as a robust mechanism aimed at protecting homebuyers and restoring faith in India’s real estate ecosystem.

References

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 7, as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020

• Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416

• Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 1

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 238

• Vishal Chelani v. Debashis Nanda (2023) ibclaw.in 117 SC

• Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 951

• Flat Buyers Ass’n Winter Hills–77 v. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (2020) NCLAT

• Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora (2023) NCLAT

• Arun Kumar v. Sripriya Kumar (2023) NCLAT

Article Written by:
Aditya Kumar, 5th year BBA LLB (Hons.)
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai

What are NPR-PPMs?

In global trade, the products we buy and sell are not just defined by their characteristics but also by how they are produced. Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, member states regulate these through laws called technical regulations. These rules may cover aspects like labeling, packaging, and product safety.

But there’s a twist. Some production methods do not change the product itself but still matter. These are called Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods (NPR-PPMs).

NPR-PPMs Explained

Production methods can be divided into two categories:

1. Product-related PPMs – These affect the actual characteristics of the product. Example: blending ethanol with gasoline changes the fuel’s properties.

2. Non-Product Related PPMs (NPR-PPMs) – These do not change the product itself. Example: whether sugarcane for ethanol was grown by cutting down forests or not.

So, NPR-PPMs are about the process, not the product. This makes them tricky in trade, because two products may look identical, but one may be seen as more sustainable than the other.

NPR-PPMs in WTO Trade Rules

Here’s the key issue: WTO rules focus on products, not processes.
If a country imposes tariffs based only on NPR-PPMs (like taxing ethanol made with deforestation differently than ethanol made without deforestation), it could violate the WTO’s principles of Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) and National Treatment (NT).

However, labeling rules have become a workaround. For example, a country may require that all imported ethanol must carry a “deforestation-free” label. This doesn’t directly discriminate by country, but it can still hit some economies harder than others.

Why NPR-PPMs Are Rising in Importance

NPR-PPMs are at the center of debates on:

• Environmental protection (reducing deforestation and carbon footprints)

• Human rights (ensuring fair labor conditions and eliminating child labor)

These measures are sometimes called green trade measures, since they tie trade rules to sustainability goals

Case Study: EU’s Deforestation Regulation and Ethiopian Coffee

The European Union’s deforestation regulation is a prime example of NPR-PPMs in action. It requires that coffee and other imports be certified as “deforestation-free.”

• Impact on Ethiopia:

  • Coffee makes up 30–35% of Ethiopia’s exports.

  • Around 25% of the population depends on coffee.

  • Most farmers are smallholders with limited resources.

To comply with EU rules, they must prove their coffee is deforestation-free. But documenting land records and supply chains is costly. Many small farmers cannot afford this.

As a result:

• Ethiopian coffee risks losing competitiveness.

• EU buyers are shifting to other suppliers.

• Farmers may lose livelihoods.

This raises the question: are such rules about climate action, or hidden trade protectionism?

Problems with NPR-PPM-based Measures

1. Broad definitions – For example, the EU counts even legal deforestation (government-approved land clearing) as a violation.

2. Unfair burden on the Global South – Agrarian economies rely on expanding farmland for exports. Restricting them harms their industrialization process.

3. Dependency creation – To comply, these countries depend on costly technology and finance from developed nations, keeping them in debt.

Green Trade Measures and Dependency

This phenomenon is often called “green squeezing.” On the surface, it helps fight climate change. But in practice, it:

• Raises production costs in developing countries.

• Increases unemployment and debt.

• Limits exports and stunts industrialization.

Dependency theorists argue this keeps the Global South tied to the Global North, reinforcing unequal trade relationships.

Balancing Environment and Livelihood

No one denies the importance of protecting the environment. But rules must also:

• Consider the economic realities of the Global South.

• Provide time and support for gradual transition.

• Focus on capacity building instead of trade restrictions.

Otherwise, these measures risk becoming protectionist tools that block fair global growth.

Conclusion

NPR-PPMs highlight the tension between sustainability goals and fair trade practices. While they can support climate action, poorly designed measures—like the EU’s deforestation regulation—can harm developing economies.

For global trade to be both green and fair, the WTO must find ways to balance environmental objectives with the need for equitable development. Otherwise, the Global South may turn inward, forming trade blocs and eroding the principles of global free trade.

Article Written by
Rajyevardhan Singh
LLM (5th Year)
School of Law, University of Bristol

In contract law, determinability refers to whether a contract can be terminated by one or both parties, either at will or under certain conditions. This concept matters because it affects the remedies available after a breach, especially specific performance.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy. In it, a court orders the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations as agreed. But if a contract is determinable—meaning it can be ended easily—specific performance is usually unavailable. Enforcing such a contract would be pointless, since it could be lawfully terminated soon after the order.

In India, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) governs specific performance and other equitable remedies. Section 14 of the SRA lists contracts that cannot be specifically enforced, including those “in their nature determinable.”

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 reformed several parts of the SRA to strengthen contract enforcement and improve India’s ease-of-doing-business rankings. However, it kept the rule excluding determinable contracts.

This article reviews the law on determinable contracts in India, both before and after 2018. It also explores judicial interpretations to clarify the scope of this concept.

Legal Framework Pre-2018

Before the 2018 amendment, Section 14(1)(c) of the SRA stated that a contract “in its nature determinable” could not be specifically enforced. The reasoning is simple: if a contract can be terminated at will, compelling performance serves no purpose. The party can lawfully end it, making a court order ineffective.

Indian courts have applied this principle consistently.

Key Cases

• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991)
  The Supreme Court considered an LPG distributorship agreement. It contained two termination clauses: one for specific events and another allowing either party to terminate with 30 days’ notice. The Court held that the latter clause made the contract determinable. Therefore, specific performance was not available. The remedy was limited to damages.

• Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. Stroh Brewery Co. (2000)
  The Delhi High Court examined agreements for technical know-how and assistance. The court held that even without a termination clause, private commercial contracts are inherently determinable with reasonable notice. Specific performance was again denied.

These cases established a clear stance: contracts with termination provisions, especially those without cause, are determinable. For such agreements, damages are the proper remedy.

The 2018 Amendment

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 took effect on August 1, 2018. It made specific performance more accessible, aiming to reduce enforcement delays and improve global rankings.

Key Changes

• Section 10 Revision: Specific performance became a general rule, subject to Sections 11(2), 14, and 16.

• Section 20 (Substituted Performance): Allowed an aggrieved party to hire a third party to perform the contract and recover costs.

• Sections 20A and 20B: Restricted injunctions in infrastructure projects and created special courts for them.

• Section 14 Substitution: Contracts that cannot be enforced include those:

  1. Where substituted performance has been obtained.

  2. Involving duties the court cannot supervise.

  3. Dependent on personal qualifications.

  4. In their nature determinable (Section 14(d)).

The exclusion of determinable contracts stayed intact. This shows the legislature wanted continuity in this area.

Implications

The 2018 amendment did not change the rule for determinable contracts. Courts continue to deny specific performance for such agreements. Pre-2018 precedents still guide interpretation.

Post-2018 Judicial Approach

Courts have upheld the principle after the amendment.

• Royal Orchids v. Kulbir Singh Kohli (2022, Delhi High Court)
  An MOU was found determinable since either party could terminate it. The court ruled that specific performance was barred under Section 14(d). It also noted that granting an injunction would amount to indirect enforcement, which is prohibited under Section 41(e).

• Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2020, Delhi High Court)
  The court held that contracts terminable at will are determinable. It cited earlier precedents, including Rajasthan Breweries.

Ongoing Debates

The exact scope of determinability remains debated.

• Some courts, like in Royal Orchids, suggest that commercial MOUs are inherently determinable, even without a termination clause. Critics argue this undermines the 2018 amendment’s goal of stronger enforcement.

• Neither the SRA nor the Indian Contract Act defines “determinable.” Dictionaries describe it as “liable to be terminated,” either at will or under conditions. This leaves room for judicial discretion.

The 2018 amendment modernized contract remedies, but determinable contracts remain excluded from specific performance. Substituted performance provides some relief, but it does not equate to enforcement of the original agreement.

Conclusion

Determinability is a critical factor in Indian contract law. The SRA, both before and after 2018, excludes such contracts from specific performance. Courts from Indian Oil Corporation (1991) to Royal Orchids (2022) consistently uphold this principle.

The law ensures that parties to determinable contracts must rely on damages or substituted performance. For businesses, recognizing determinability at the drafting stage is essential to avoid disputes.

While debates continue on the exact scope, the position remains stable. A future Supreme Court ruling or legislative clarification may refine the concept further.

Article by:
Aditya Kumar
5th year BBA LLB (Hons.),
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law,
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai

This article analyses a legal void created by the recent substantive criminal law, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The new code omits the provision for bestiality (sexual abuse of animals). Earlier, this was a crime under Section 377 of the IPC, 1860.

This legislative lacuna marks a complete departure from India’s traditional values of safeguarding and protecting animals. The article argues for the immediate reinstatement of a specific, stringent penal provision that ensures justice for voiceless victims.

INTRODUCTION

“वही सचमुच देखता है जो सभी प्राणियों में भगवान को समान रूप से देखता है।”
This verse from the Bhagavad Gita means that divine power lies in all living beings.

Sadly, this core message of Indian philosophy has been overlooked in modern criminal legal reforms. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 has repealed the specific provision of bestiality, which was earlier a crime under Section 377 of the IPC, 1860.

Protecting animals from abuse is a responsibility of human beings. Yet, the legal framework for their protection is missing. Animals remain vulnerable to sexual abuse, which is a horrendous crime. The legislature has failed to recognize it, despite recommendations from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs to include the crimes of Section 377 in BNS 2023.

REPORT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS

The press release of the committee in paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17 clearly directed the central government to reintroduce and retain the crimes of Section 377 IPC. The government, however, failed to act on this recommendation.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK: SHIFT FROM IPC TO BNS

Section 377 of the IPC was the key provision for “unnatural offences.” It criminalized carnal intercourse against nature, which included men, women, and animals. Sexual abuse of animals was recognized as a criminal offence.

In 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. It decriminalized consensual sex between adults of the same sex, marking a victory for LGBTQ+ rights.

The court clarified that the law would still apply to non-consensual acts and bestiality. Bestiality continued to be a criminal offence. Only consensual adult same-sex relations were accepted as constitutional.

However, Section 325 of BNS 2023 only provides punishment for killing or maiming an animal by mischief. It prescribes five years’ imprisonment and a fine but excludes sexual violence. Community service is also not listed as a punishment.

By omitting Section 377 entirely, BNS 2023 leaves voiceless victims unattended and allows wrongdoers to escape legal punishment.

INADEQUACY OF THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA) does not cover sexual abuse as cruelty. The punishment is minimal. For the first offence, the fine is only ₹10 to ₹50, with no imprisonment provision.

Even for repeated offences, the penalties remain lenient. This makes the Act inadequate for addressing sexual abuse of animals.

RECENT CASES

Nagpur Equestrian Case (May 2025)

A staffer at an equestrian academy sexually abused a mare. Public outrage followed, with animal welfare organizations demanding action. Yet, the legal case proceeded only under the PCA, which carries weak penalties.

The punishment under Section 11 is usually a fine of ₹50–500 or up to three months’ imprisonment. This case highlights the insufficiency of existing animal protection laws in India.

Labrador Sexual Abuse Case (April 2025)

In this case, a man was arrested for sexually abusing a pet dog. The crime caused significant animal suffering. Once again, the police relied on the PCA due to the absence of provisions under BNS.

The charges remained weak and symbolic. This case further exposed the inadequacies in India’s current animal protection laws.

PETA India has also urged the Home Ministry to address sexual violence against animals in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

SUGGESTION

India needs a robust law drafted with a compassionate view. Bestiality must be criminalized as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Punishments should be strict enough to act as a strong deterrent.

CONCLUSION

Legislation must secure justice and protection for all living beings by making bestiality a criminal offence.

• Article 48A of the Constitution mandates the state to protect the environment, forests, and wildlife.

• Article 51A(g) makes it the duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures.

By removing Section 377 IPC and excluding it from BNS, the government has violated these constitutional principles. As a result, a vulnerable section of society—animals—has been left without legal protection.

Article written by
SAHIL SHARMA
BALLB(HONS.) from University Institute of Legal Studies, HPU Shimla, 171004

Memes, Copyright, and Why Your LOL Might Not Be Legal

Let’s talk about something you’ve definitely double-tapped, shared, or maybe even screenshotted to send to your bestie with “THIS IS SO US.” Yes, we’re talking about memes.

But before we get lost in another deep scroll of Panchayat edits or Squid Game spoofs… have you ever stopped and thought:

“Wait, can someone actually own a meme?”

Well, I did.
(Hi, I’m Yamini. I am an intern at BnB Law Associates, and I spend a lot of time thinking about things like fashion law, copyright chaos, and yes, even meme legality.)

First, What Even Is a Meme?

Memes are more than internet jokes. They’re how we talk, protest, promote, joke, cope, and sometimes, drag people.

From Dora the Explorer screaming at Swiper to a still from Panchayat captioned with “my brain when I’m asked to be productive”, memes are everywhere.

They are:

• Tools for social commentary

• Vehicles of satire

• Clever marketing tricks

• And sometimes, just… plain unhinged chaos (but we love that)

But the thing is, they’re not always legally safe.

Memes and the Law – Sounds Boring, But Stay With Me

Here’s the tea:

Most memes are made using content that someone else owns—a photo, a scene from a movie, a song lyric, a celebrity’s face. That stuff? Protected under copyright.

In India, the Copyright Act, 1957, says that images, screenshots, and even stills from movies are “artistic works” under Section 2(c).

So, if you take a still from Sacred Games and slap a “Tu Kaun Hai Bro?” caption on it… well, technically, you just used someone’s copyrighted work without permission.

Oops?

But Wait, Isn’t It Just a Meme?

Yes, but also no.
Welcome to the grayest of legal gray areas.

Most memes are technically infringement, but here’s where it gets juicy:

There’s something called fair use (or fair dealing in India), which sometimes saves the day.

Under Section 52(1)(a), if your meme is:

• Non-commercial

• For parody, satire, criticism, or reporting

• Transformative (like, really adding a whole new vibe to the original)

…you might be in the clear. Might.

But, and this is a big but, there’s no formula. Every meme would be judged case by case.

Courts in India don’t have tons of meme precedents (yet), so we’re kind of in a legal wild west.

A Quick Case You Should Know (Even If You Hate Legalese)

In the US case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the court laid out a 4-part test to see if something’s fair use. Indian courts (like in the Blackwood case) have borrowed that logic too:

1. What’s the purpose? Is it for fun or $$$?

2. What’s the nature of the original work?

3. How much did you use?

4. Is the OG creator losing money because of your meme?

If your meme checks these in the right way, it might be safe. But if you’re using memes to sell stuff, go viral as a brand, or clap back with someone else’s content, you’re skating on thin ice, legally speaking.

So, Who Owns a Meme?

Let’s say you:

• Download a Bollywood still

• Add your own text

• Post it on Insta

What now?

You don’t own the photo. But you do own the caption or joke you wrote. So technically, the meme is a combo.

OG creator owns the image. You own your edits. Together, it’s a copyright sandwich.

But the problem? Most memes don’t come with receipts. They’re shared anonymously, edited a hundred times, posted on Reddit, WhatsApp, Twitter, and suddenly, no one knows where it started.

Why This is a Legal Nightmare

• Memes go viral FAST. By the time someone says “hey that’s my photo,” the meme has already hit 5 million shares.

• Most meme pages are anonymous. Who do you sue? Who’s responsible?

• What counts as “transformative” isn’t clear. Add a caption, is that enough? Depends.

• Jurisdiction is a joke. A meme made in the US, reposted in India, hosted in Singapore… whose law applies?

• Brands are using memes too. That’s where trouble really begins. Commercial use = bigger legal risk.

• AI is now making memes. Who owns an AI meme?

• Platforms are all over the place. What gets removed on YouTube might trend on Twitter. Algorithms don’t understand satire (yet).

So, What Can Creators (Like You!) Do?

Whether you run a meme page, make reels, or just love a good caption, here’s what you should know:

• Original = Safe
  Create your own visuals or use royalty-free sources.

• Transform and Add Value
  Make sure your meme does more than just repost an image, add commentary, make it satirical, critique something.

• Credit the Source
  Even if not legally required, it’s just… respectful.

• Avoid Using Memes for Commercial Purposes Without Permission
  Running ads, collabs, or promo with copyrighted content = risky biz.

• Know Your Rights Too!
  If someone steals your original meme (say, a drawing, cartoon, or OG caption) and brands it as theirs, you can take action too.

Final Thoughts from a Meme-Loving IP Nerd

Memes are chaotic, hilarious, culturally iconic, and legally complicated.

They live at the intersection of:

• Expression & Ownership

• Creativity & Copying

• Freedom of speech & IP rights

As someone working in IP law, I find this space so fascinating because the law hasn’t caught up yet—we’re literally shaping this in real time.

And as creators, meme-makers, marketers, and lawyers, we’ve got to ask:
“How do we protect creativity without killing the fun?”

Article written by 
BALLB,Fifth Year, Galgotias University

On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered one of its most controversial and far-reaching judgments in recent animal welfare jurisprudence.

In a suo motu case titled In Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued sweeping directions that fundamentally altered India’s approach to stray dog management.

This marked a significant departure from established legal frameworks and constitutional principles.

Origins of the Case and Judicial Intervention

The case arose when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a disturbing report in The Times of India (July 28, 2025).

The article highlighted tragic incidents of stray dog attacks on children in Delhi, including:

• Chavi Sharma (6 years old) — suffered multiple bites leaving deep wounds on her leg, arm, and palm.

• Abhishek Rai (4 years old) — attacked by a pack of dogs while returning from his Anganwadi School.

The statistics presented were alarming:

• About 20,000 dog bite cases daily across India.

• Nearly 2,000 cases in Delhi alone each day.

• India accounts for 36% of global rabies deaths, with 3.7 million bite cases reported in 2024.

Disturbed by these figures, the bench initiated judicial intervention and appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae to assist in this “burning issue.”

The Revolutionary Judicial Directive

The August 11 judgment represents a dramatic shift in India’s stray dog policy.

Key directions include:

1. Immediate Removal and Permanent Detention

   • All stray dogs in Delhi-NCR must be captured and relocated to shelters within 6–8 weeks.

   • They must never be released back onto the streets.

2. Infrastructure Development

   • Dog shelters to house at least 5,000 animals initially.

   • Facilities must include sterilization, vaccination, and CCTV monitoring.

3. Emergency Response System

   • A dedicated helpline within one week.

   • Complaints of dog bites must be addressed within four hours.

4. Enforcement Mechanisms

   • Any obstruction to relocation will invite “stern action” and contempt proceedings.

Most controversially, the bench rejected the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. Justice Pardiwala remarked: “For the time being, forget the rules,” calling the sterilize-and-release approach “absolutely absurd.”

Legal Framework in Conflict: ABC Rules vs. Supreme Court Order

The Court’s directive directly conflicts with India’s established statutory framework.

The ABC Rules, 2023, enacted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, require the Capture–Sterilize–Vaccinate–Return (CSVR) method. Dogs must be released in the same locality after treatment, recognizing them as “community animals.”

These rules were developed after extensive consultation with experts and earlier Supreme Court directions. The new judgment disregards this framework entirely.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The order raises profound constitutional concerns:

• Article 51A(g) — imposes a duty on citizens “to have compassion for living creatures.”

• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — treats animals as sentient beings deserving protection.

• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) — extended Article 21 rights (life and dignity) to animals.

The August 11 directive appears to contradict these principles without acknowledgment or overruling.

Scientific and Policy Critique

The order has divided experts:

• Dr. Abi T. Vanak, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & Environment, welcomed judicial attention but warned of implementation hurdles.

• Other biologists and welfare groups argue the directive disregards decades of research supporting the CSVR method.

Implementation Challenges and Humanitarian Concerns

Practical obstacles are enormous:

• Delhi alone has ~1 million stray dogs; NCR has even more.

• Court-mandated shelters for 5,000 dogs cover just 0.5% of Delhi’s stray population.

The feasibility of large-scale detention is doubtful.

To its credit, the bench clarified that captured dogs must not face cruelty or neglect, and ordered adequate food, care, and monitoring.

Jurisdictional Conflicts and Judicial Review

The directive has already caused legal friction.

On August 13, 2025, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai noted “two contradicting judgments by two different benches.” He referred the matter to a three-judge bench (Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria).

Hearings began on August 14, 2025, signaling that broader constitutional review is inevitable.

Broader Legal and Social Implications

This case is not just about stray dogs. It raises:

• Judicial overreach into policy.

• Tension between public safety and constitutional compassion.

• Rejection of expert-backed statutory schemes.

A particularly troubling aspect is the ban on adoption of captured dogs, which critics say condemns thousands of adoptable animals to lifelong confinement. This may worsen overcrowding, disease, and cruelty—ironically undermining the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Future Implications

The ruling sets concerning precedents:

• Judicial rejection of statutory, expert-driven frameworks.

• Short-term safety prioritized over long-term science.

• Emergency powers used to override settled law.

As India grapples with urbanization and human-animal conflict, the resolution of this case will define how courts balance safety, compassion, and scientific evidence.

Conclusion

The August 11, 2025 judgment is a landmark test of India’s constitutional values.

It pits compassion and science against public fear and judicial activism. The outcome of its review will shape the future of animal welfare law and the very nature of judicial governance in India.

Submitted by:
Vikash Kumar Raj
(Student, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow)

In Indian law, dowry is strictly prohibited. There are several provisions under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 that define and criminalize dowry.

Definition of Dowry under Indian Law

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act defines “dowry” as:

“Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage, or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before, or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage of the said parties. However, this does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.”

This means that any transfer of wealth connected to marriage is considered dowry, except for religiously recognized customs like mehr.

Definition of a Gift in Indian Law

By contrast, a gift is a voluntary transfer of property made without coercion or expectation of return. Legally, gifts are considered valid when they are given out of free will.

The real issue arises when it becomes difficult to distinguish between a voluntary gift and a disguised dowry. Social pressure, family expectations, or demands by one party may blur the lines between the two.

Dowry-Related Cases in India

Several court cases highlight the grave consequences of dowry:

• Deoki Bai & Ors vs The State of Madhya Pradesh – The court found that the deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty and ultimately suffered a dowry death.

• Nur Salim Mallick & Ors vs The State of West Bengal – The judgment emphasized that for Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) to apply, there must be a clear connection between the woman’s death and dowry-related harassment or cruelty.

These cases reflect the tragic outcomes when dowry demands are disguised as “gifts.”

The Difference Between Dowry and Gift

• Dowry: Transfer of money, property, or valuables under pressure or demand in connection with marriage.

• Gift: Voluntary transfer given out of affection or goodwill, without compulsion.

However, in many marriages, what is presented as a “gift” may actually be given under social or family pressure, making it closer to dowry in practice.

Why Dowry Is a Crime but Gifts Are Accepted

Dowry is a punishable crime in India because it leads to harassment, cruelty, and even deaths of women, widely known as dowry deaths. On the other hand, gifts are legally accepted since they are presumed voluntary.

But when a gift is given due to societal pressure or hidden demands, it raises the question: is it truly different from dowry?

Conclusion: Rethinking Dowry vs Gifts

The Dowry Prohibition Act was enacted to protect women and prevent exploitation. While gifts are allowed, the blurred line between gifts and dowry often fuels the same harmful practices.

👉 A simple marriage, free from unnecessary expenses, dowry demands, or forced gifts, ensures dignity and equality. Hard-earned money should not be wasted where there is no real return — either emotionally or socially.

Dowry must end, and even gifts at marriages should be carefully regulated to prevent misuse.

Article written by
Kavya Chalana 3rd Year
B.A.LLB.
Guru nanak dev University Amritsar Punjab

To get started, we need to understand what the Metaverse Environment is. The metaverse is a shared, persistent, and immersive virtual world. In this world, people interact with each other and with digital objects. These are often represented by avatars.

Think of it as a 3D version of the internet. It offers the ability to navigate, socialize, work, play, and shop in a virtual space. By allowing users to trade virtual goods, services, and digital assets, traditional intellectual property (IP) regimes face new challenges. In particular, trademark law is under pressure.

In this op-ed, we explore trademark infringement in the metaverse and beyond. It tests traditional trademark principles within the virtual paradigm. It also looks at jurisprudence and possible legal avenues while keeping in mind India’s socio-legal ethos.

Introduction

The metaverse has emerged as a vital commercial platform. Here, virtual marketplaces, digital avatars, and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are widely used. Indian brands, together with their customers, actively join these ecosystems. Platforms include Decentraland, Roblox, and Meta’s Horizon Worlds.

This rapid digital shift poses significant challenges for trademark protection. Virtual domains are not bound by territorial jurisdiction, where legal remedies are normally available.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 is the primary statute for protecting trademarks in India. It enables companies to safeguard their business marks. Yet, the virtual economy presents new issues. Trade is conducted through pseudonymous avatars and decentralized platforms. This runs contrary to traditional notions of trademark use and consumer protection.

Overview of Trademark Law in India

A trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is defined as:

“A mark capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.”

The Act empowers the owner with exclusive rights to use the mark. It also prevents unauthorized use that is likely to result in deception or confusion.

Key features include:

• Section 29: Infringement of registered trademarks.

• Section 11: Grounds for refusal of registration, such as likelihood of confusion with earlier trademarks.

• Section 134: Jurisdiction of courts in cases of infringement.

India also subscribes to the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. This shows its commitment to global trademark norms.

Use of Trademarks in the Metaverse

Trademarks are increasingly used in virtual spaces:

• On digital avatars’ clothing or accessories (e.g., Nike or Gucci skins in video games).

• In service centers and virtual storefronts.

• Through branded content or artwork in the form of NFTs.

• In metaverse architecture and real estate (e.g., a virtual Taj Mahal constructed using the “Tanishq” brand).

The Challenge: Transposing Principles to Virtual Worlds

a) Territorial Jurisdiction

Trademark rights are territorial. Indian trademarks are enforceable only in India. But what happens if infringement occurs in a virtual world with no geography? Can Indian courts assume jurisdiction if an Indian brand is misused in the metaverse?

b) Use in Commerce

Indian law requires that a mark be used “in the course of trade.” Traditionally, courts held that “trade” means the physical or virtual exchange of goods. But does the sale of a virtual T-shirt for cryptocurrency qualify as trade?

Cultural and Traditional Dimensions

Indian branding is deeply linked with cultural symbols, motifs, and religious imagery. These are increasingly used in the metaverse, often without consent. Such use can be culturally insensitive.

a) Use of Indian Religious Symbols

Hindu gods, rangoli patterns, and symbols from Ayurveda are common themes for NFTs. These are often turned into avatar accessories or sold directly. This can amount to trademark infringement as well as cultural misappropriation.

b) Safeguarding GI Tags and Traditional Knowledge

India has many Geographical Indications (GI), such as Banarasi Sarees and Darjeeling Tea. These are safeguarded under law. Their misuse in virtual spaces, such as online sales of virtual Banarasi sarees, may require a new enforcement approach.

Judicial and Legislative Steps in India

India has not yet witnessed a landmark ruling on trademark infringement in the metaverse. Still, trends are emerging:

• Courts are more open to acknowledging virtual trademarks. For example, in Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, the Delhi High Court recognized parody and virtual expression.

• The Government of India has shown interest in regulating digital assets. This is visible in discussions on the Digital India Act and data governance policies.

• The Information Technology Act, 2000, however, has very limited IP enforcement mechanisms for virtual environments.

Legal Aspects to Consider

To address trademark infringement in the metaverse, the following steps are suggested:

1. Updates to Legislation

• Amend the Trade Marks Act to include virtual goods and virtual worlds.

• Provide enforcement provisions under the Digital India Act for IP infringement in decentralized systems.

2. Development of a Virtual IP Registry

• Create authorization for trademarks that apply in both the real and virtual worlds.

• Establish a national “Digital Goods Registry” to monitor NFTs and virtual trade.

3. Judicial Capacity Building

• Train judicial officers in new technologies, digital evidence, and cross-border enforcement.

4. Public Awareness Campaigns

• Educate producers and consumers on digital rights. This is especially important in rural and semi-urban India, where cultural misuse may be more common.

Conclusion

India is a land of culture-bound branding and a rapidly growing digital economy. It cannot ignore the IP concerns of the metaverse. Existing trademark law is a starting point but must evolve for virtual realities.

What India needs is a legal framework that is enlightened, culturally sensitive, and technology-responsive. This will safeguard both economic interests and India’s traditions in cyberspace.

Article written by
Pankaj Kumar Singh
BBA LLB (H)
Fifth Year

Imagine pouring your heart, heritage, and hours into a design, only to find it knocked off by a fast-fashion giant a few weeks later. Welcome to the modern fashion battlefield, where creativity and commerce constantly collide. In this world, your original idea can become someone else’s bestseller faster than you can say “intellectual property.”

We live in an era where “dupes” are worn like a badge of honor. Knockoffs are normalized, and TikTok hauls of lookalike designer bags rack up millions of views. But beneath the glitz of viral trends lies a deeper story. Independent designers are struggling to protect what’s rightfully theirs.

The New Face of Fashion Theft

Gone are the days when knockoffs were embarrassing. Now, they’re celebrated as smart shopping. With rising living costs and a culture obsessed with constant outfit changes for the ’Gram, consumers reach for fast, cheap, and trendy over original and ethical.

But there’s a hidden cost: the erasure of originality. Small designers lose not just profits but their creative identity, all in the name of “affordability.”

Take Chet Lo, a queer designer of color, whose spiky knitwear was eerily mirrored in an H&M collection. Or Niccolò Pasqualetti, whose graduate portfolio mysteriously reappeared on Bottega Veneta’s runway. Cases like these blur the lines between inspiration and imitation. They show just how easy it is to steal in the digital age.

When the Law Struggles to Catch Up

The law was never made for fashion’s breakneck speed. Copyright protects artistic works, but it fizzles out if a garment is mass-produced over 50 times in India. This happens because of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

Registering a design under the Designs Act, 2000 can take months, if not years. In Microfibres Inc. v. Giri & Co., the court ruled that once a design was used industrially, its copyright was gone. The problem? Fashion lives in seasons. Trends fade faster than legal paperwork can be filed.

Even when brands take the legal route, outcomes are mixed:

• Gucci v. Forever 21: Ended in a hush-hush settlement.

• Christian Louboutin v. Pawan Kumar: A rare win protecting Louboutin’s iconic red soles.

• Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels: Reinforced the 50-copy copyright limit in India—bad news for designers.

So who’s protected? The answer is clear: brands with financial resources, robust legal teams, and a global reach. Independent designers? Often left to fend for themselves.

From “Inspired” to Infringed: Where’s the Line?

In fashion, it’s almost impossible to separate inspiration from imitation. Everyone borrows. Chanel redefined masculinity in womenswear. Virgil Abloh remixed streetwear with haute couture.

However, there’s a difference between homage and theft. Mark Twain once said, “There’s no such thing as a new idea.” That may be true. But in fashion, execution is where the magic lies.

Yet that magic is being mass-produced, watered down, and sold in polyester for ₹599.

Legal Loopholes and Copycat Culture

Fast fashion thrives in legal gray zones. Dupes don’t always copy logos, but they copy silhouettes, fabrics, even photographs.

In Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Designs, the Delhi High Court sided with the designer, granting an injunction against a blatant copy. But these are exceptions. In most cases, by the time a court hears a case, the collection is already out of style and off the racks.

This lag, combined with cross-border marketplaces, means a design stolen in Mumbai could be sold in Madrid within weeks. The original creator has little recourse.

The Way Forward: From Legal Reform to Conscious Consumption

• Speed up design protection: India must fast-track registration under the Designs Act. One-season delays are unacceptable in a six-week trend cycle.

• Reform Section 15(2): Designers should not lose copyright just because they sell more than 50 pieces.

• Stronger moral rights: Creators deserve recognition and control over how their designs are used, even post-sale.

• Tech to the rescue: Blockchain timestamping, AI detection tools, and RFID tags can digitize defense.

• Ethical influencing: What if TikTokers promoted small, original brands as passionately as they promote Shein hauls? Influence can create impact.

Creativity Deserves Protection, Not Exploitation

Fashion is more than clothes. It’s culture, expression, and art. Behind every sketch is a story. Behind every stitch, a soul.

If we allow a culture of unchecked imitation to flourish, we don’t just lose legal rights. We lose the very spirit of fashion.

To changemakers, IP advocates, sustainable designers, and fellow creatives: let’s not just follow trends. Let’s set new ones. Let’s protect what we create. And let’s make fashion a place where originality isn’t just admired—it’s respected.

Article written by By Yamini Kaira

“Revision is a remedy, not a second appeal.”

The term “revision” originates from the Latin revidere, meaning “to see again.” In judicial parlance, it signifies a re-examination by a superior court of the legality and propriety of proceedings before a subordinate court.

Unlike appeal, revision is not a continuation of the original proceedings but is supervisory in nature. This is to ensure that subordinate courts do not exceed or fail to exercise their jurisdiction. The objective of this provision is to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and correct any jurisdictional errors that may have caused injustice.

However, the scope of interference under revision is narrow. It does not extend to every erroneous decision. The High Court exercises its discretion cautiously, and only in cases where gross injustice or perversity is apparent. It must be emphasized that the remedy under Section 115 is discretionary and not a matter of right.

Conditions for Exercising Revision

For a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be maintainable, three essential and cumulative conditions must be satisfied. These conditions act as jurisdictional thresholds, guiding the High Court on whether to exercise its revisional authority.

1. No Appeal Lies from the Order

The foremost condition is that no appeal should lie against the impugned order. Revision under Section 115 is not an alternative to appeal. It is a special supervisory remedy available only in non-appealable cases.

For example, if the order is interlocutory (such as one passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on an amendment application) and there is no right of appeal under the CPC, the aggrieved party may seek revision.

2. Jurisdictional Error

The second condition is a jurisdictional defect in the order of the subordinate court. This must fall into one of the following categories under Section 115(1):

(a) Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law

This occurs when a subordinate court entertains or decides a matter over which it has no legal authority. For instance, a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction passing a decree in a suit exceeding its monetary competence. In such cases, the court acts coram non judice, and the order is voidable under revision.

(b) Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction Vested by Law

This arises when a court refuses to entertain or decide a matter that it is legally obliged to hear. For example, if a court rejects a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 without applying the correct legal principles, the High Court can step in to correct such a refusal.

(c) Illegality or Material Irregularity in Exercise of Jurisdiction

This is perhaps the most litigated category. It occurs when the court, though competent to decide the matter, commits a serious procedural or legal irregularity while doing so.

The term “material irregularity” has been judicially interpreted to mean an error that goes to the root of the matter, such as:

• Ignoring mandatory legal provisions,

• Deciding without proper pleadings,

• Violating principles of natural justice.

A mere wrong interpretation of the law is not sufficient. The error must be so grave that it affects the jurisdictional integrity of the proceedings.

Discretionary Nature and Finality of the Order

Even if the above two conditions are met, the High Court must still consider whether the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would cause manifest injustice or finally dispose of the suit or proceeding.

This test was inserted via a proviso to Section 115 through the CPC Amendment Act, 1999. The purpose was to ensure that revision is exercised only when the impugned order is decisive and has serious legal consequences, not for every procedural misstep.

The order must either:

• Conclude the rights of the parties, or

• Have such an effect that, if not corrected, would result in the finality of proceedings through illegality.

Can Revision Be Filed Against Interlocutory Orders?

The conceptual basis of revision lies in the doctrine of superintendence. The High Court acts as a supervisory authority to ensure the proper functioning of the judicial hierarchy.

However, this power is significantly limited in its scope and application.

The maintainability of a revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been a subject of judicial interpretation, especially after the 1999 Amendment Act, which significantly curtailed its scope.

The amended provision now bars the High Court from entertaining a revision petition unless the order, if allowed to stand, would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding.

This means that interlocutory orders, such as those passed during trial, are generally not revisable unless they have a decisive impact on the case.

The rationale behind this amendment was to prevent procedural delays caused by excessive use of revisional jurisdiction and to ensure the speedy disposal of suits.

However, this power is exercised sparingly, and only when the error is significant enough to warrant correction in the interest of justice.

Landmark Case: Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon

In the landmark case of Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated:

“The jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order in exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is challenged by Khanna on three grounds:

(i) that the order did not amount to ‘a case which has been decided’ within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

(ii) that the decree which may be passed in the suit being subject to appeal to the High Court; the power of the High Court was by the express terms of Section 115 excluded; and

(iii) that the order did not fall within any of the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115.

The section consists of two parts:

1. The first prescribes the conditions in which jurisdiction of the High Court arises (i.e., there is a case decided by a subordinate Court in which no appeal lies to the High Court).

2. The second sets out the circumstances in which the jurisdiction may be exercised.

But the power of the High Court is exercisable in respect of “any case which has been decided.” The expression “case” is not defined in the Code or in the General Clauses Act.

It is undoubtedly not restricted to a litigation like a suit in a civil court: Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar [LR 44 IA 261].

It includes a proceeding in a civil court in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked for the determination of some claim or right legally enforceable.

There has been a serious conflict of opinion in the High Courts in India on whether an interlocutory order amounts to a “case which has been decided.”

• One view: The expression “case” includes an interlocutory proceeding relating to rights and obligations. The High Court may rectify an order of a Subordinate Court at any stage, even if another remedy is open to the party.

• The other view: The expression “case” does not include an issue or a part of a suit. Therefore, the High Court has no power in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to correct an interlocutory order.

Conclusion

Although the CPC does not define “revision,” courts have interpreted it as a mechanism to protect litigants against decisions that are not appealable but which nonetheless cause substantial injustice or are manifestly erroneous in law.

The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction acts as a guardian of procedural integrity and jurisdictional discipline. It prevents subordinate courts from straying beyond their legal mandate or denying justice through technical misuse of procedure.

Written by Aameya Sharma
B.A.LL. B (Hons.) – 9th Semester
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh

References:
[1] Saket Grover v. Hemant Grover & Anr. (C.R.P. 29/2023)
[2] (1964) 4 SCR 409

Consider waking up, turning on Instagram, and the first thing you see is that someone is posting photos of a beach in Bali, with a stylish latte, perfect face, and ethereal caption: “just manifesting peace?”. While you’re lying in bed with matted hair, incomplete homework, and public anxiety churning in your mind. Familiar?

Welcome to the curated madness of social media — the unofficial world Gen Z inhabits.

The Comparison Game: A Never-Ending Spiral

Let’s get real. Social media isn’t just an app anymore. It’s a way of life — and one that’s always asking for more. More likes. More posts. More perfection. More. everything.

When we look at influencers with airbrushed faces, hourglass figures, designer outfits, and perfectly curated travel journals, it makes for an unrealistic standard. The demand to be flawless 24/7 fuels self-doubt, body dissatisfaction, and a poisonous desire for approval.

Individuals begin to doubt their value on the basis of followers, likes, and views. “Why does their life appear more perfect than mine?” “Am I not good enough?” The poisonous cycle creates low self-esteem, anxiety, and an increasing isolation — in a hyper-connected world.

Trolling: The Dark Alley of the Internet

And then there’s trolling — harsh, cruel, and frequently deeply personal.

Social media puts everyone’s mic in everyone else’s hand, but not everyone uses it well. Haters conceal themselves behind pseudonymous handles and post hate comments as if it were a game. For Gen Z whose sense of identity is still in process, these attacks land particularly hard.

A single hateful comment on someone’s look, thought, or way of life can snowball into insecurity, depression, or even cyberbullying trauma. Worse? Trolls never stop — and sometimes the algorithm makes hate spread.

The Fake ‘Happy Life’ Syndrome

It’s not just influencers. Even regular users feel pressured to post only their “highlight reels.” You’ll rarely see someone post about a mental breakdown, a failed exam, or a lonely night. Instead, it’s all smiles, travel vlogs, fancy meals, and “perfect relationships.”

This constant stream of fake happiness creates an illusion that everyone is thriving — except you.

This “happiness overload” quietly jiggles around with mental health. It induces FOMO (fear of missing out), burnout from the need to ‘keep up’, and the sense of being behind in the race of life — even when nobody’s running.

Filters, Edits & The Death of Realness

Snapchat filters. Face Tune. AI avatars. Virtual makeup.

We’ve reached a point where people are afraid to post unfiltered photos. Gen Z, especially teens, are starting to believe that beauty means big eyes, sharp jawlines, glowing skin, and zero flaws. Real faces no longer feel enough. That’s scary.

This obsession with “perfect” pictures affects body image and self-worth. Instead of embracing individuality, people chase a copy-paste version of beauty that isn’t even real.

But Hold On — It’s Not All Bad!

Now let’s flip the filter — because there are some seriously great sides to social media too.

 A Global Classroom at Your Fingertips

From news flashes to life hacks, tutorials to self-improvement posts — Gen Z is the best-educated generation ever. Whether learning a new language, being aware of global news, or discovering professional advice, social media is strong when wielded correctly.

Consider this: one popular reel can educate you on financial literacy. One viral thread can motivate activism. One tweet can ignite a revolution. Information has never been so accessible.

 Expression, Identity, and Community

Social media has also provided Gen Z with a voice. Whether it is mental health awareness, LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, or climate change — Gen Z uses the digital space to express, speak up, and educate.

Communities are forming around common struggles, interests, and identities. Individuals are no longer invisible; now they feel heard. That’s the kind of empowerment that social media provides.

Opportunities Never Previously Available

Several Gen Z users are monetizing their passions. Content creators, brand builders, digital artists — the creator economy is flourishing.

You don’t need a degree to begin anymore. You require a platform and purpose. From side hustles to startups, social media is empowering Gen Z to pursue their passions — with reach, impact, and independence.

So, What’s the Bottom Line?

Social media is a double-edged sword. For Gen Z, it’s both a battlefield and a blessing. It can shatter confidence or construct careers. It can nourish insecurities or ignite dreams. It can isolate or empower. It just depends upon how it’s used.

Article written by
Palak Bansal
Legal Intern

“Before the judge sits, the media has already announced the verdict.”

On July 23, 2022, Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana expressed serious concern about the rising number of media trials, describing them as obstacles to justice and harmful to democracy. In his keynote address at the inaugural lecture in memory of Justice Satya Brata Sinha in Ranchi, he stated:

“Of late, we see the media running kangaroo courts, at times on issues even experienced judges find difficult to decide. Ill-informed and agenda-driven debates on issues involving justice delivery are proving to be detrimental to the health of democracy.”

Justice Ramana urged both electronic and social media to act responsibly.

What is a Kangaroo Court?

A kangaroo court is a mock or illegitimate court that ignores established legal norms and due process, often reaching predetermined outcomes. These “courts” are characterized by:

• Structural inferiority compared to official judicial institutions.

• Lack of procedural fairness and due process.

• Informal or unofficial operations, often driven by bias or public sentiment.

• Unjust outcomes, which risk violating an individual’s rights and dignity.

How is Media the Real Kangaroo Court?

Trial by media closely mirrors the nature of a kangaroo court. In both cases, the presumption of innocence and due legal process are ignored. Media trials occur when news outlets declare a person “guilty” before a court has ruled, leading to a parallel trial by public opinion.

Key Points:

• The term “trial by media” gained prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, especially with the rise of television and digital news.

• It refers to news coverage that shapes public perception of guilt or innocence, regardless of legal proceedings.

• Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of speech and the press is a fundamental right. However, this freedom should be used judiciously and responsibly.

• When media shifts from impartial reporting to judgment, it replaces due process with a public spectacle, often resulting in social condemnation before any legal conviction.

• The media’s responsibility is to inform—not to convict. It must prioritize facts over speculation, and fairness over sensationalism.

Recent Examples of Media Trials

Several high-profile cases have highlighted the dangers of media overreach and premature judgment:

• Samay Raina Case: The comedian was accused of mocking disabled people. Media platforms quickly labeled him guilty, causing serious reputational harm before any investigation. As a result, he had to remove related content from India’s Got Latent due to the backlash.

• Aarushi Talwar Murder Case: Extensive media coverage led to prejudgment, overshadowing the court’s role.

• Vijay Mallya Controversy and Ayodhya Dispute: These cases were widely covered with biased narratives, creating a distorted public opinion.

• Nithari Killings: Sensational reporting influenced public sentiment and judicial perception.

Such instances prove that media coverage, when unchecked, can influence trials, damage reputations, and interfere with justice

Conclusion

The misuse of media trials not only harms individual reputations but also erodes trust in the judiciary and journalistic integrity. The media, often referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy, wields immense power to shape public discourse, influence governance, and hold institutions accountable.

When used ethically, media can play a constructive role, as seen in the Nirbhaya gang rape case, where continuous coverage led to the formation of a fast-track court, legal reforms, and nationwide introspection.

However, when media prioritizes TRPs and clicks over truth, it becomes the real kangaroo court, undermining its very purpose. To restore public faith, the media must return to ethical journalism, committed to truth, balance, and justice.

“With great power comes great responsibility.”
The future of media in a democratic society depends on upholding this ideal.

By: Aameya Sharma
B.A. LL.B (Hons.) – 9th Semester
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh

“Ours is a country where you are not allowed to talk to a stranger, but you are allowed to marry one.”

This quote perfectly summarizes the contradiction in Indian culture. While arranged marriages—where people marry strangers—are widely accepted, live-in relationships still face social disapproval.

In a culture where traditions and rituals dominate, live-in relationships challenge the status quo. Society often romanticizes marriage, but in reality, it can involve compromise, emotional struggle, and even abuse.

Many young adults today explore live-in relationships to test compatibility before entering into a lifelong legal contract. However, society continues to idolize marriage and demonize cohabitation, even when the emotional dynamics of these relationships are complex. Thankfully, some progress has been made—more people are choosing to live together to truly understand their partners before committing to marriage.

Live-In Relationships: An International Perspective

Globally, live-in relationships are gaining recognition and legal protection. However, the level of acknowledgment varies by country.

• France: The Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) grants unmarried couples legal rights concerning property, taxes, and inheritance.

• Canada and Australia: Unmarried couples are recognized as “common-law partners” or in “de facto relationships” after living together for a certain period or having children.

• United States: Some states recognize “common-law marriage,” granting couples marital rights without formal registration, provided they present themselves as spouses.

• United Kingdom: Common-law marriage is not recognized, leaving cohabiting couples with minimal protection unless legal agreements are in place.

• Scotland and Ireland: Both have developed legal frameworks that protect long-term cohabitants, especially those with shared responsibilities.

These examples show a growing international acceptance of non-marital partnerships, offering a balance between personal freedom and legal accountability.

Legality of Live-In Relationships in India

India has no formal legislation that governs live-in relationships. However, legal interpretations and judicial precedents have provided clarity over time.

Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation

Under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a “domestic relationship” is defined to include relationships “like marriage.”

The Supreme Court of India has passed significant judgments on this topic, affirming the legitimacy of such arrangements under constitutional protections.

Key Case Laws

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr

This landmark judgment emphasized that live-in relationships are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. The Court clarified that such relationships are not illegal.

Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

Here, the Court established criteria to identify whether a relationship qualifies as a “relationship like marriage.” These include:

• Common intention of the parties.

• Duration of the relationship.

• Shared household and financial resources.

• Emotional and intimate involvement.

• Public socialization as a couple.

Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation

In this case, a couple lived together for nearly 50 years. Though there was no proof of a formal marriage, the Court recognized a presumption of wedlock due to their long-term cohabitation. However, this presumption can be rebutted, with the burden of proof lying on the challenger.

Recent Developments: Uniform Civil Code

The Uttarakhand government has recently passed a Uniform Civil Code, which includes a mandate to register live-in relationships. While this is seen as progressive, critics argue that it infringes on individual privacy and liberty, both fundamental to the Constitution.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding live-in relationships is not just legal or cultural—it’s about personal choice and the freedom to define relationships.

As India balances its rich traditions with modern ideals, discussions like these are crucial. They reflect a society in transition—one where love is slowly being redefined beyond rituals and toward mutual respect and freedom.

“From the point of ignition to the final drive, the point of the journey is not to arrive.” —Neil Peart

Acceptance may be a long journey, but every conversation, every judgment resisted, brings us closer to a society that honors love in all its forms.

Aameya Sharma
B.A.LL.B (Hons.) – 9th Semester
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh