The prostitution is not just current fire but it emerged from our historical roots. Prostitution is not just about sexual activity but activating the exponent of humiliation, mental cruelty and lowered self esteem. Irrespective of its negatives, it's thriving faster than the speed of light. The Human Trafficking Act claims to protect women from being trafficked, but are women safe enough? Is the act implemented with the right direction? The response of this question lies with the practices going under the noses of legislators, judiciary and law protectors. The researcher requests to consider sex workers under the category of profession marking how it is thriving in metropolitan cities. The researcher carries out the study about Sonagachi, an area infamous for the trade of girls for prostitution. The researcher in this manuscript pleads to make provisions for protection of sex workers and fights to grant them rights and protection. Legalisation of prostitution is a necessary evil as it will support the de-stigmatisation of sex workers in the future of India which will safeguard the dignity of women from sexual crimes.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows a child aged sixteen or seventeen who is alleged to have committed a heinous offence to be tried as an adult after a "preliminary assessment" by the Juvenile Justice Board. This paper argues that the transfer mechanism is less a principled answer to serious adolescent offending than a legislative compromise whose costs fall on the procedural guarantees the Act otherwise extends to children. It reads section 15 against the Supreme Court's decisions in Shilpa Mittal and Barun Chandra Thakur, the age-determination case law, and the developmental research on adolescent culpability, and it engages the retributive and victim-centred case for transfer on its own terms. Accountability and rehabilitation, the paper contends, are not two poles to be traded off at a single age threshold. Both depend on institutional capacity that the system has never been resourced to supply: functioning Boards, trained probation staff, individual care plans that are actually followed, and aftercare that reaches young people beyond eighteen. Reform should narrow and proceduralise transfer, introduce statutory diversion, decouple offence classification from the general penal code, and treat implementation failure as a rights violation rather than an administrative shortfall.
Section 166(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 requires directors to act with 'due and reasonable care, skill and diligence' and to exercise 'independent judgment'. The provision was drafted for human decision-makers and is silent on what that duty demands when a board relies on an algorithmic system whose reasoning it cannot inspect. This article argues that the gap is practical, not theoretical. Indian courts have not fixed a consistent standard of care, the protections available to directors under sections 463 and 149(12) operate only after a dispute arises, and the regulatory material now addressing AI in Indian finance, from SEBI's 2025 consultation paper to the RBI's FREE-AI report and 2026 draft model-risk guidance and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, binds entities rather than defining the individual director's duty of care. Drawing on Delaware's process-based oversight cases and on the distinction between substance and process in corporate governance scholarship, the article proposes a five-part Board AI Oversight Standard (identify, understand, challenge, monitor and document). It recommends two routes to give the Standard legal force: an amendment to Regulation 21 and Schedule II of the SEBI Listing Regulations, and a rebuttable presumption of due care under section 166(3) for boards that follow it. The proposal gives firms an ex ante and auditable benchmark for defending board decisions, and gives courts a workable test.
Although the "Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999" does not specifically address women, who perform a significant portion of the labour in the crafts it protects, GIs are advocated in India as a tool for rural artisans engaged in manufacture of traditional artcrafts. In order to determine if registration has resulted in economic empowerment for women and advancement toward Sustainable Development Goals 5, 8, and 12, this research examines Madhubani Paintings, Channapatna Toys, Pochampally Ikat, and Kashmir Pashmina Shawls through lens of women worker participation, their contribution to the overall product, their economic benefit, if any received by women artisans directly attributable to the GI and the economic effect of honouring women exceling in their area of GI goods production by awards. It compares official data and open access studies with the Act, the Rules, TRIPS, the Geneva Act, and the European Union's 2023 proposed GI rule using a doctrinal and comparative approach. The four GIs are held or administered by state bodies or cooperatives. With authorised user registration remaining scarce and the evident concentration of women in low-margin stages of production the article attempts to throw light into the economic realities of women engaged in handicraft production due to non-recognition of their contribution and inaccessibility to the markets an area dominated by their male counterparts. Furthermore, the article provides suggestions to overcome the gender gap within the GI goods landscape.
Future generations' interests must be considered in environmental decision making if intergenerational equity is to be considered. However, the usefulness of it is contingent on the impact it has on remedies, the boundaries of adjudicatory power and environmental directions, and the implementation of environmental directions.
The first is about the prevention of harm, the second is about the restoration and the compensation for harm and the third is about the scope of the Tribunal's statutory powers. These are categories, not doctrines that are mutually exclusive. As facts emerge one dispute may jump from one to the other. The paper's argument is that no one of the three can be evaluated without causal responsibility and post order compliance and evidence.
The paper relies on doctrinal analysis of NGT Act, the provisions of the Constitution, some Supreme Court and NGT decisions and some international instruments. It also takes into account official statistics regarding environmental compensation funds, and recognizes that the total amount of funds does not mean that the money was raised and/or used specifically for intergenerational equity.
From June 2025 the Election Commission of India extended a “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of electoral rolls from Bihar to almost every State and Union Territory, requiring enrolled electors to re-establish eligibility through fresh enumeration and, if unlinked to an earlier intensively revised roll, documentary proof. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2026), the Supreme Court upheld the exercise as traceable to Article 324 of the Constitution read with section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, found it proportionate, and recognised a “limited enquiry” into citizenship confined to electoral consequences. This article argues that the judgment settles the question of power but leaves three problems unresolved. First, by treating entries made through summary revisions as carrying only a rebuttable presumption, it relocates the burden of proving eligibility onto enrolled electors in a manner difficult to reconcile with Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995). Second, its proportionality review was largely retrospective: the safeguards that sustained the exercise were judicially supplied mid-stream, and the Bihar election was completed before adjudication, exposing a gap between roll revision and the finality Article 329(b) attaches to elections. Third, the open-textured phrase “in such manner as it may think fit” has enabled procedural law-making by administrative order and software, as the 2026 dispute over the Form 6 declaration illustrates. The article proposes statutory codification of special revision, a minimum pre-election interval, individualised deletion procedures, cohort-sensitive documentation, and a statutory purpose limitation on SIR data.
