This paper critically examines the persistent issue of custodial deaths in India from a historical perspective to contemporary society. The paper analyzes the legal protections and development measures taken by the legislature and judiciary through the enactment of statutory safeguards and judicial pronouncements. It uncovers the systemic problems faced by detainees within the criminal justice system, highlighting the lack of independent oversight, the weaponization of procedural laws, and the deficit in police accountability. The study adopts an analytical approach to identify the difficulties faced by victims of custodial violence and relies on the socio-legal method to depict the problem in a cultural, political, and historical sense, particularly focusing on how marginalized communities bear the disproportionate brunt of state violence. It compares Western democracies like the United Kingdom and South Africa with the Indian framework, evaluating independent investigative models. It also compares India’s legal framework—including the transition from colonial-era codes to the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) with international human rights standards. By examining the lived experiences and recent statistics surrounding custodial violence, the study finds that there exists a severe functional gap between the formal legal framework and practical implementation at the grassroots level. The paper concludes by recommending necessary measures and reforms for the protection of detainees and the enforcement of human rights in Indian police stations beyond mere directory guidelines.
This paper critically examines the intersection of climate change and human rights, specifically focusing on the right to life and environmental justice in India. It analyses the legal frameworks, policy measures, and judicial pronouncements that address the adverse impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations. Uncovering the multi-dimensional threats posed by environmental degradation, the study notes India's severe vulnerability to extreme weather events. The study adopts an analytical approach to identify the functional gaps between constitutional guarantees and on-ground realities, particularly for populations living in highly vulnerable districts. It compares western approaches, such as statutory climate litigation in the Netherlands and Germany, with those in Latin America and the Global South. Furthermore, it scrutinizes India’s evolving jurisprudence, notably the Supreme Court's recognition of a distinct right against the adverse effects of climate change under Article 21. By examining socio-economic data and legal precedents, the study reveals systemic administrative shortcomings in achieving true environmental justice. The paper concludes by recommending targeted legal reforms, statutory climate goals, and equitable resilience strategies to ensure the protection of marginalized communities.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a part of modern business. Companies use algorithms to decide prices, understand customer behaviour, predict demand, monitor competitors and improve their business decisions. These technologies can make markets more efficient and can provide benefits to businesses and consumers. At the same time, the increasing use of AI creates new challenges for competition law.
One such challenge is algorithmic collusion. In simple words, algorithmic collusion may arise when pricing algorithms used by competing businesses result in coordinated or similar prices, even when there is no traditional agreement or direct communication between the businesses. This creates an important question for competition law: if a computer program or AI system produces an anti-competitive result, who should be legally responsible?
The Indian competition law framework is mainly based on the Competition Act, 2002. Section 3 deals with anti-competitive agreements, while Section 4 deals with abuse of dominant position. The law can potentially apply to certain forms of algorithm-assisted anti-competitive conduct. However, autonomous algorithmic coordination creates difficult questions regarding agreement, intention, evidence, responsibility and accountability. These problems become more complicated when AI systems learn from market information and change prices automatically.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in its 2025 Market Study on Artificial Intelligence and Competition, recognised AI-facilitated collusion as an emerging competition concern. The study also noted that pricing algorithms may facilitate coordination without traditional communication between competitors.
This paper examines whether the existing Indian competition law framework is sufficient to deal with algorithmic collusion. It studies the concept of algorithmic collusion, its different forms, the challenges faced by competition authorities, and the lessons that can be taken from international developments. The paper argues that India does not necessarily need an entirely separate competition statute, but it requires clearer legal principles, regulatory guidance, technical investigation capacity and rules relating to accountability and transparency of high-risk pricing algorithms.
The rapid growth of smartphones has changed the nature of criminal investigation because mobile phones are no longer used only for calling and messaging. Modern smartphone may contain photographs, videos, WhatsApp conversations, e-mails, call records, location information, social media activity, internet history, financial transactions, documents, passwords, application data and other information which may become important in a criminal investigation. Therefore mobile devices have become one of the most important sources of digital evidence in cybercrime as well as in conventional crimes having a digital component. Mobile device forensics is concerned with the scientific recovery, preservation, acquisition, examination, analysis and reporting of information from mobile devices in a manner which maintains the reliability and integrity of the evidence.
In India the increasing importance of mobile forensic evidence has created both legal and technical questions. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 now provides the principal statutory framework for electronic and digital records. Sections 61 to 63 specifically deal with electronic records and their admissibility. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 also introduces important provisions relating to search and seizure through audio-video electronic means and electronic modes of criminal proceedings. At the same time, constitutional rights under Articles 20(3) and 21, particularly privacy and protection against compelled self-incrimination, must be considered during forensic examination.
The major difficulty is that digital evidence can be easily altered, deleted, encrypted, remotely destroyed or transferred to cloud servers. A mobile phone may also contain information belonging not only to the accused but also to family members, friends, victims and unrelated third parties. Therefore, investigation cannot be based merely on taking possession of a mobile phone. Proper seizure, preservation, forensic imaging, extraction, hashing, documentation, examination and presentation before the court are necessary.
Indian courts have gradually developed principles concerning electronic evidence. Decisions such as Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal established important principles regarding electronic records under the earlier Evidence Act. These principles remain relevant while understanding the transition to Sections 61–63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has also continued to emphasise the importance of admissibility and proper proof of electronic evidence.
This paper critically studies mobile forensics in India from both technical and legal perspectives. It examines the forensic process, difficulties involving locked and encrypted devices, deleted and cloud data, chain of custody, admissibility, privacy, expert evidence and institutional limitations. It argues that effective mobile forensic investigation requires cooperation between investigating officers, forensic experts, prosecutors and courts, together with standardised procedures and continuous technological training.
The criminal justice system is not concerned only with punishing the offender. It must also recognise the person who has suffered because of the crime. For a long time, criminal proceedings in India were largely understood as a dispute between the State and the accused, while the victim had a comparatively limited role. The development of victim-oriented criminal justice has gradually changed this position. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 BNSS introduces and continues several provisions which are important from the perspective of victims. These include the right to information, participation in legal aid programmes, compensation, medical facilities, witness protection and the right to appeal. The law therefore gives a right to victims to attempts a more meaningful position in criminal proceedings. However, the existence of a statutory right does not mean that the right will be effectively enjoyed. A victim may have a right to compensation but may face delay in receiving the right. A victim may have a right to information but may not know how to obtain the compensation. This paper critically examines the victim-oriented provisions under the BNSS and considers the gap between legal recognition and practical implementation. It also examines important judicial decisions which have contributed to the development of victim rights in India. The paper argues that the BNSS provides a stronger statutory foundation for victims, but its real success will depend upon awareness, effective legal aid, police and prosecutorial accountability, timely compensation and sensitive treatment of victims. The protection of victims must also be balanced with the accused right to a fair trial.
In the digital economy, market power is no longer defined solely by traditional metrics such as price control or output restriction. Instead, it is increasingly entrenched by control over data, network effects, algorithmic design, and platform intermediation. This research explores the evolving contours of “abuse of dominance” in the context of digital markets, with a specific focus on how new forms of entry barriers—such as data monopolization, lock-in effects, and self-preferencing—reshape competition law enforcement. While traditional antitrust tools emphasized output and pricing models, they often fall short in addressing exclusionary conduct that impedes innovation and consumer choice in the digital economy. This paper critically evaluates the adequacy of India’s Competition Act, 2002 in regulating such barriers and draws comparisons with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act and jurisprudence under Article 102 TFEU. The analysis further reflects on the challenges faced by the Competition Commission of India in market definition, evidence thresholds, and the need for ex-ante tools. Through a comparative and doctrinal lens, the paper proposes a recalibration of legal standards to recognize and address abuse rooted in digital architecture rather than merely pricing strategies.
