INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

All research articles published INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

IJLRA	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 5 Issue 8 2022 Page 1-6
IEEE	N. Raj Kumar ; Kamble Shivadayal . "Design of Fault Tolerance Parallel FFT’s Using Xilinx 14.5v" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 5(8)

[1] World Health Organization, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An interagency statement, WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM, OHCHR, UNHCR, UNECA, UNESCO, UNDP, UNAIDS, WHO, Geneva, 2008, p. 4.

[2] United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change, New York, 2013.

[3] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994)3 SCC 569.

[4] Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989)1 SCC 204.

[5] Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011)1 SCC 694.

[6] S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2017)4 SCC 516.

[7] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., (1997)10 SCC 549.

[8] Brian A. Garner, editor-in-chief. Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters, 2014.

[9] Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001)7 SCC 1.

[10] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dina Nath, AIR 1997 SC 1095.

[12] Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973)4 SCC 225.

[13] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994)3 SCC 1.

[15] S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983)1 SCC 51.

[16] The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.

[17] Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, (1976)2 SCC 17.

[18] Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394.

[19] T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

[20] Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2016)2 SCC 725.

[22] 20 Ghadially R, Manushi A., All for izzat’ the practice of female circumcision among Bohra Muslims, JOURNAL ABOUT WOMEN AND SOCIETY. 1991, 66, p 17–20.

[23] State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995)1 SCC 189.

[24] State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti K.K. Jamat, (2005)8 SCC 534.

[26] Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, (1962) 1 SCR 383.

[28] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017)9 SCC 1.

[29] Charu Khurrana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192.

[1] The Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860), s. 375

[2] The Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860), Exception to s. 375

[3] The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (No 43 of 2005)., s.3

[4] Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1SCC 490

[8] The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, s. 3(a)

[9] The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (No 43 of 2005)., s3(a)

[10] The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (No 43 of 2005)., s3(d)

[11] Campbell, R., Dworkin, E. and Cabral, G., An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women's mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2009

[12] Surjibhai Badaji Kalasva v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 59 (3) GLR 2498

[13] Ann Burgess and Lynda Holmstrom, Rape Trauma Syndrome, American Journal of Psychiatry 981-986 (1974).

[14] Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.

[18] Sarkar J. Mental health assessment of rape offenders, 55(3) Indian J Psychiatry 235?243 (2013).

[20] The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), s. 376(1).

[22] The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), s. 376A.

[24] Law Commission of India, “42nd Report on Indian Penal Code,1860” (June, 1971).

[25] Law Commission of India, “172nd Report on Review of Rape Laws” (January, 1998).

[28] Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.

[29] State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75 (India).

[30] C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra, (1992) 1 SCC 441 (India).

[31] See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 549, Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

[32] The Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das¸ AIR 2000 SC 988.

[33] Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378.

[34] State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan, AIR 1991 SC 207.

[36] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (India)

[38] Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) No. 26957

[41] Rafiq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1980 Cr. L.J. 1344 SC

[42] Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat R/Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 26957, 24342 of 2017 and R/Special Criminal Application No. 7083 of 2017

[43] World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, South African Medical Research Council (2013). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/

[2] AV Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 138 (1952).

[4] The Federalist Papers: No. 46, Yale Law School, https://avalon.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp.

[5] The Federalist Papers: No. 48, Yale Law School, https://avalon.yale.edu/18th_century/fed48.asp.

[7] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; Necessary and Proper Clause, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/necessary_and_proper_clause#.

[9] GEOFFREY R. STONE, et. al., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 165-169, (5^thed. 2005).

[11] Indian Independence Act, 1947 c. 30 (10 & 11 Geo. 6); CONST. INDIA, art. 395.

[13] Constituent Assembly of India Debates, 15^th November 1948.

[23] William Marbury v. James Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

[27] Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).

[28] Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).

[38] Jeff Powell, The Compleat Jefforsonian: Justice Rehnquist and Federalism, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 91, No. 7 (Jun., 1982), pp. 1317- 1370, https://www.jstor.org/stable/795957.

[39] New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

[40] United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

[44] Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1952 SC 458.

[45] Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845.

[46] Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.

[47] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

[48] Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

[49] Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.

[50] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

[51] SR Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

[52] Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2616; ITC LTD v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, AIR 2002 SC 852.

[57] INDIA CONST. VII Sch., List I, Entry 52, 54, 97.

[58] INDIA CONST. VII Sch., List II, Entry 23, 24.

[61] Shamser v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192.

[62] Union of India v. Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328.

[63] Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420.

[64] SR Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

[69] EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.

[1] Aliber RZ. A theory of direct foreign investment in Kindlebenger CP, (ed). The International Cooperation MT Press, Cambridge, MA, United States; 1970.

[2] Todaro MP, Smith SC. Economic development (8th Ed.) Delhi Pearson Education; 2003.

[3] Anyanwu JC, Oaikhenan HE. Modern macroeconomics: Theory and application in Nigeria. Joanee Education Publishers ltd, Onitsha; 1995.

[1] WIPO Magazine. (2020). Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: a new dimension of IP. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2020/02/article_0005.html

[2] Abbott, R., & Cohen, I. G. (Eds.). (2020). Artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Oxford University Press.

[3] World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). WIPO Technology Trends 2021: Artificial Intelligence. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1055.pdf

[4] Bracha, O., & Pasquale, F. (2019). Federal search commissions: A policy proposal to mitigate the risks of artificial intelligence. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 32(2), 469-509.

[5] Bracha, O., & Pasquale, F. (2019). Federal search commissions: A policy proposal to mitigate the risks of artificial intelligence. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 32(2), 469-509.

[6] Rimmer, M. (2020). Robots and the copyright wars: Toward a new common law. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 67(2), 149-178.

[4] Neeraj Aarora, Plea Bargaining- A New Development in the Criminal Justice System, Posted on December 18, 2010, available at https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/plea-bargaining-a-new-development-in-the-criminal-justice-system-html (last visited on 25 Febuary, 2023)

[5] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.

[6] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.

[7] Notification of Ministry of Law and Justice, No. S01042 (I) , issued on July 11, 2006.

[8] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-L.

[9] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-B.

[10] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-C.

[11] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-D.

[12] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-E.

[13] The Criminal Law (Amendment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-I.

[14] The Crimi.nal Law (Am.endment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-G.

[15] The Crim.inal Law (Ame.ndment), 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), Sec 265-A.

[16] State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakor, (2005) 1 GLR 709.

[17] Crl. MA No. 9856/1007 & Bail Appln. 1298/2007.

[18] J. E. Ross, “The entrenched p. .osition of Plea Bargaining in Unit.ed States legal practice”, 54 A.M. J COMP. L.717, 717 (2006).

[19] Vishwanath, A. (2016) Why Hasn’t Plea Bargaining Taken off in India? MINT. available at https://www.livemint.com/Politics/otm5XvV7DTZJ9KaKScbJ4H/Why-hasnt-plea-bargaining-taken-off-in-India.html (last visited on 23 Febuary, 2023).

Unveiling The Legitimacy Of Female Genital Mutilation In Indian Dawoodi Bohra Community: An Analysis Of Constitutional Framework By - Apoorva N R

Search And Seizure And Offences Against The State – An International Perspective By - Shatakshi Singh & Pritha Ghosh

An Analysis Of Law Relating To Marital Rapes In India By - Bhupender Singh Antil & Deepak Bedi

Judiciary Vis-À-Vis Federalism: A Comparative Analysis Of The Us And Indian Approach By - Abhinav Viswanath

LEGAL STATUS OF IDOL AND MOSQUE IN INDIA By - Siddharth Keswani & Miti Jain

Direct Proportional Relationship Between Fdi And Capital Market Growth by - Abhishek Singh

An Overview Of Cross Border Insolvency In India By - P. C. Abirami

LEX FORI AND LEX LOCI By - Hrithik Rajat Kumar

BOOK REVIEW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY By - Uday Singh Cheema

PLEA BARGAINING MECHANISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY By – Deepak

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation 2

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation