Compassionate appointment occupies an uneasy position in Indian public service law. Conceived as an exceptional measure to relieve the immediate financial distress of families of government employees who die in harness or are medically incapacitated, it departs from the general rule of open, merit-based recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This paper examines whether, and on what conditions, that departure is constitutionally defensible. Using a doctrinal methodology, it analyses constitutional provisions, service rules and judicial decisions, taking the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023, as amended in 2025, as a state-level illustration. It argues that the courts treat compassionate appointment as a limited, scheme-based welfare exception grounded in need, and not as a vested right. It shows, however, that the insistence on immediacy sits uneasily with administrative delay, that need is assessed through inconsistent proxies, that the authorities disagree on which version of a scheme governs a claim, and that the Supreme Court's two decisions of late 2025 are best read as addressing different claims and not as conflicting. The paper concludes that the exception can be reconciled with equality of opportunity only under clear, uniform and time-bound criteria, with reasoned decisions and consistent judicial scrutiny, and it offers nine reform recommendations.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming education through generative AI, adaptive learning systems, automated assessment, learning analytics and algorithmic decision-making. These technologies offer significant opportunities to expand access to educational resources, personalise learning and support teachers. However, their integration into education also raises fundamental human-rights concerns relating to equality, non-discrimination, privacy, human dignity, autonomy, accountability and meaningful participation. This article examines AI in education through the contemporary international human-rights regime, with particular emphasis on the right to education. It argues that the traditional digital divide is evolving into an AI divide: inequality increasingly concerns not only access to electricity, devices and internet connectivity, but also access to capable AI systems, digital and AI literacy, quality data, local-language resources and the institutional capacity to participate in and challenge AI-mediated decisions. Drawing upon international human-rights instruments, United Nations and UNESCO materials, African regional policy and recent scholarship, the article applies the availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability framework to AI-enabled education. It examines algorithmic discrimination, educational data, children's rights, human agency, teachers' roles, transparency and linguistic inequality. It proposes an eight-principle human-rights framework based on meaningful universal access, equality and non-discrimination, inclusion and accessibility, privacy and data protection, human agency and oversight, transparency and explainability, accountability and effective remedy, and participation. The article concludes that the legitimacy of AI in education should not be measured by technological sophistication or efficiency alone. Rather, AI should be governed as a means of advancing the right to education while preserving human dignity, equality and agency.
Leaving behind is indispensable for moving forward. It mainly applies to technological developments. To promote and achieve creativity and innovation, especially in the scientific field, the complete exclusion of damage may not be possible, but sustainable development is feasible. The resources of the future are guarded by sustainable development, thereby preventing the exploitation of natural resources and the environment. Both IPR and sustainable development are interconnected as they mutually support innovation. Economic growth is aided and challenges are addressed globally. IP assists research essential for sustainable development in fields like health and agriculture. Green technology promotes the mitigation of climate change and aids in the research of renewable energy. IPR offers protection against biopiracy and protects traditional knowledge. Indigenous communities often possess measures and suggestions for sustainable development. IPR makes sure that no developing country is exploited by a developed nation that has all the means to extract monetary benefits through knowledge of the developing nations. IPR offers coverage globally over products of innovation and creativity. It also facilitates the use of those products all across the world. It aims to uphold the concept of the "greater good." IPR acknowledges and distributes technology that supports sustainable development, but it condemns biopiracy. The indigenous communities that are victims of Biopiracy are exploited and left with no credit, authority, or monetary compensation. The WIPO supports the usage of IP in the public domain, but it also protects traditional knowledge through patents, copyrights, et cetera. This paper aims to discuss the persistent discourse between the goals of intellectual property and sustainable development. It also elaborates on how the theft of traditional knowledge affects people who possess concerned cultural and spiritual identities.
Generative artificial intelligence has changed how people prepare and share digital content. A user can now create or edit text, images, voices and videos within a very short time. These tools are useful in education, business, entertainment and many other areas. However, they can also be misused. For example, a person may use AI to imitate another person's voice, prepare a fake intimate image, spread a false video or support an online fraud. Such incidents raise an important question: who should be held criminally responsible when AI-generated content is used to harm someone?
The answer depends on the facts of each case. The person who gives the prompt, the developer who designs the tool, the organisation that uses it and the platform that shares the content may have different roles. This paper examines whether traditional principles of criminal law, including actus reus, mens rea, causation and individual responsibility, can deal with these situations. It follows a doctrinal and comparative method and considers selected legal developments in the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe. A qualitative comparative matrix is used to examine the legal materials. The study finds that existing criminal laws can cover many forms of deliberate misuse, but practical difficulties remain in identifying offenders, proving intention, collecting digital evidence and investigating cases across borders. The paper argues that a balanced legal response should focus on the conduct and responsibility of each actor. It should protect victims without treating every error made by an AI system as a crime.
In India, the effects of a development project on nature and on people are judged in different rooms. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is carried out under the EIA Notification, 2006, by environmental regulators, for projects of a listed type and size. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is carried out under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by land acquisition authorities, and only when land is compulsorily acquired. This article examines what that separation costs. It identifies three problems: social harms that escape assessment altogether, consultation that is split across several forums, and decisions taken without a full view of a project's consequences. It reviews signals from the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal that environmental and social questions cannot be kept apart, and draws on the World Bank, the European Union and South Africa for workable models. It concludes by proposing five reforms that can be introduced within India's present constitutional and statutory framework, beginning with amendments to the EIA Notification that the Union can make on its own.
Suicide is a complex issue that continues to exist in Indian society even today. Some individuals may feel that ending their lives is the only way to escape the difficulties and challenges they are facing. When such an attempt does not result in death, it is considered an attempt to commit suicide. Over time, the law relating to attempt to commit suicide in India has changed considerably. Earlier, under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, an attempt to commit suicide was made a punishable offence, and this approach was often criticised because a person who survives a suicide attempt may already be facing serious emotional, social or personal difficulties and may require support and care rather than punishment. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 brought an important change by recognising the severe stress faced by persons attempting suicide and emphasising care, treatment and rehabilitation. Subsequently, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 removed the general offence of attempt to suicide while retaining criminal liability only where the act is done with the intention of compelling or restraining a public servant from discharging official duties. This provision of BNS is particularly relevant to hunger strikes, which have historically been used in India as a method of protest to address grievances and demand governmental action. This article examines the changing legal approach towards attempted suicide and the legal position of hunger strikes in the context of criminal law and constitutional freedoms. It argues that a hunger strike should not automatically be treated as criminal offence and highlights the importance of examining the intention of the person and the circumstances of each case before applying Section 226 of the BNS.
