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] Standing Committee on Information Technology (2013-14), Fifteenth Lok Sabha, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, “Cyber Crime, cyber security and right to privacy” 52^nd Report , New Delhi, February, 2014.

[2] Jaishankar, K., Cyber Bullying: Profile and Policy Guidelines. Tirunelveli: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, 2009.

[3] Be Aware B4 You Share. Revenge Porn, The Facts

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405286/revenge-pornfactsheet.pdf

[8] Para 68 of General comment No. 25 (2021)[8] on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment.

[9] Refer Para 70 of the General comment No. 25 (2021)[9] on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment.

[10] Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) and Anr v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[13] Rachel Finn and David Wright, Michael Friedewald, Fraunhofer ISI, “Seven Types of Privacy” 2013. Available at : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258892458.

[14] Section 2(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022.

[15] Section 10(1) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022.

^{^[1]} Brenner, SW. (2014) Cyberthreats and the decline of the nation-state. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

^{^[2]} Dr. Amita Verma ,”Cybercrimes and Law”, central law publication, first edition,2009, page-31

^{^[3]} Eli Noam, Columbia University; “Regulating Cyber Space”, November 1997: retrieved June 29, 2016

^{^[4]} L.Cohen and M.Felson, ‘Social Change and Crime Rate Trends : A Routine Activity Approach’ (1979) 44, American Sociological Review 588,589.

^{^[5]} It is a time for countries talking about arms control on internet, Economist, July 1, 2010 4

^{^[7]} Dr. Russel G. Smithy,Investigating Cyber Crime: Barriers and Solution, Pacific Rim Fraud Conference,2003

^{^[8]} Cybercrime and Intellectual Property section of the National Informational Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996: Legislative analysis (U.S. Department of Justice)

^{^[9]} Brenner .W. Susan,Bert-Jaap Koops “ Approaches to cybercrime jurisdiction” Journal of High Technology Law 2004, p, (21-22)

^{^[10]} Susan. W. Brenner and Bert Japp Koops “cybercrime and jurisdiction”

^{^[11]} J.G. Starke, Introduction to International Law, Tenth Edition (1989) p. 352

^{^[12]} L.Oppenheim, International law, Vol.I, Eighth Edition, p.696

^{^[16]} Narayan MudlagiriMahale vs. Emperor, AIR 1935 Bom 437.

^{^[18]} Nicholas W. Cade. An Adaptive Approach for an Evolving Crime: The Case for an International Cyber Court and Penal Code, 37 Brook. J. Int’l L. 1143 (2012).

^{^[19]} Charlotte Decker, Cyber Crime 2.0: An Argument to Update the United States Criminal Code to Reflect the Changing Nature of Cyber Crime, 81 S. CAL. L. REV. 959 (2008).

^{^[20]} Dad Weissbrodt, Cyber-Conflict, Cyber-Crime, and Cyber-Espionage, 22 Minn. J. Int’l L. 347 (2013).

^{^[21]} Dominic Carucci, David Overhuls&Nicholas Soares, Computer Crimes, 48 AM, CRIM. L. REV.375, 378 (2011).

^{^[22]} Stephan Wilske; Teresa Schiller, International Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: Which States May Regulate the Internet, 50 Fed. Comm. LJ. 117, 178 (1997).

^{^[24]} Nicholas W. Cade, An Adaptive Approach for an Evolving Crime: The Case for an International Cyber Court and Penal Code, 37 Brook J. Int’l L 1160 (2012).

^{^[25]} 382 Nicholas W. Cade, An Adaptive Approach for an Evolving Crime: The Case for an International Cyber Court and Penal Code, 37 Brook J, Int'l L 1139 (2012) at 1160

^{^[26]} James D. Fry, Comment, Terrorism as a Crime against Humanity and Genocide: The Backdoor to Universal Jurisdiction, 7 UCLA J. INT’L L. & FOREIGN AFF. 169, 175 (2002).

^{^[27]} Anthony J. Colangelo, Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law, 48 HARV. INT’L L.J. 121, 132 (2007).

[3] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 17A, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[5] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 48, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[7] The Wild Birds and Animals Protection (Amendment) Act, 1935, C.P. 27, Act No. 8, 1935 (India).

[8] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 3, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[9] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 4(a), Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[10] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 5, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[11] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 5A., Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[12] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 5B., Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[13] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 38L., Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[14] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 38A., Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[15] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 38, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[16] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 18, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[17] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 9, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[18] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 12, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[19] Tarun Bharat Singh Alwar v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 514.

[20] The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, § 55, Act No. 53, 1972 (India).

[21] Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan, (2003) 4 SCC 595.

[22] G.R. Simon v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Delhi 301.

[23] Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (10) SCC 604.

[24] Pradeep Krishen v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2040.

[25] ‘Billy’ Arjan Singh - the legendary ‘Tiger-walla’ departs, WWF (March 27, 2023, 17:19 PM), https://www.wwfindia.org/?3880/Tiger-walla-departs.

[26] Eleonora Fanari, Villagers in UP's Dudwa Tiger Reserve Face Human Rights Violations, Eviction Notices, Land Conflict Watch (March 27, 2023, 21:27 PM), https://www.landconflictwatch.org/conflicts/dudhwa-national-park.

[28] Human-Wildlife Conflict, The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (March 27, 2023, 12:17 PM), https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/human-wildlife-conflict#:~:text=Wildlife%20can%20threaten%20people's%20safety,grow%20and%20habitats%20are%20lost.

[29] Global Goals, World Wildlife Fund (March 27, 2023, 12:17 PM), https://wwf.panda.org/discover/about_wwf/our_goals/.

[30] THARU RESEARCH CENTER, https://tharuresearchcenter.com/ (last visited March 27, 2023).

[2] Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech-

a) To freedom of speech and expression;

b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;

c) To form associations or unions;

d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;

e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

f) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

[3] All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

[4] Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of Article 19 shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency, or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

[5] Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

[6] Promoting disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

[7] Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration.

[8] Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs: whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

[9] Statements conducing to public mischief: whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumor or report with intent to cause or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or with intent to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community.

[15] It provided means to restrict freedom of speech and expression.

[21] Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121: whoever within or without India conspires to commit any of the offences punishable by Section 121 or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

[22] Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the government of India: whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description fir a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

[23] Whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, etc., any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

[24] Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain cases.

[26] Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.

[27] A concession that a person or statement must be regarded as correct, if the contrary is not proved.

[31] Insults to Indian National Flag and Constitution of India.

[33] Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.: Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,

(a) Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;

(c) Any electronic mail or message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

[37] Article 21 of Indian Constitution Act, 1950: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

[2] Ramamurthy P, Chathoth V, Thilakan P. How does India Decide Insanity Pleas? A Review of High Court Judgments in the Past Decade. Indian J Psychol Med. 2019 Mar-Apr;41(2):150-154. doi: 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_373_18. PMID: 30983663; PMCID: PMC6436411.

[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/

[1] Secretary, Ministry of I & B Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161

[2] Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 Sc 1643

[4] PREAMBLE, The Spirit and Backbone of the Constitution of India, Justice R. C. Lahoti, First Ed. Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2004, Page 94

[5] THOMMEN J., in Indra Sawhney Vs. UOI, AIR 1993 SC 477

[8] Quoted in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr. 1995 AIR 1236

[16] Unni Krishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178

[17] Francis Coralie Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

[18] P.S.R. Sadhanantham Vs. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856

[23] Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharshtra, (2009) 7 SCC 104

[24] Prem Chand Garg Vs. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996

[25] Coffee Board Vs. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1971 SC 870

[1] Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the U.N., Order, 1948 I.C.J. 121 (Dec. 11)

^{^[2]} The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations states, art.6.

^{^[3]} International Legal Personality, Law Teacher (Aug. 26, 2021),

[4] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, [accessed 26 March 2023]

^{^[5]} Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the U.N., Order, 1948 I.C.J. 121 (Dec. 11)

^{^[6]} James E. Hickey Jr, The Source of International Legal Personality in The Twenty First Century ( Jan. 1, 1997),

^{^[7]} The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

^{^[8]} Vincent Chetail, The Legal Personality of Multinational Corporations, State Responsibility and Due Diligence: The Way Forward ( Dec. 6, 2013),

^{^[9]} Tara Van Ho, International Legal Personality of Corporations: How Investment Law answers the Supreme Court Question in Jesner ( Oct. 2, 2017),

^{^[10]} James E. Hickey Jr, The Source of International Legal Personality in The Twenty First Century ( Jan. 1, 1997),

^{^[11]} Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951.

^{^[12]} International Legal Personality, Icelandic Human Rights Centre

^{^[1]} M’Naghten Case, (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200, 8 ER 718.

^{^[2]} Bellingham’s Case (1812) 1 Collison, Lunacy 636.

^{^[3]} Alberty v State (1914) 10 Okla. cr. 616, 140 Pac. 1025; Smith v STate (1909) 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945.

^{^[4]} Schwarcz v. State (1902) 65 Neb. 196, 91 N. W. 190; Genz v. State (1896) 59 N. J. L. 488. 37 Atl. 69.

^{^[7]} Sharma, K. M. “DEFENCE OF INSANITY IN INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 7, no. 4 (1965): 325–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854.

^{^[8]} Moran, Knowing right from Wrong - The Insanity Defence of Daniel McNaghtan (1981); Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953, at Ch 4.

^{^[12]} Crotty, Homer D. “The History of Insanity as a Defence to Crime in English Criminal Law.” California Law Review 12, no. 2 (1924): 105–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3475205.

^{^[13]} 3 Witthaus & Becker, medical Jurisprudence (2nd ed.) 432, 448, 449; Parsons v. State (1886) 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854; Lee v. State (1902) 116 Ga. 563, 42 s. E. 75

^{^[14]} R v Mathew Oommen (1994) 30 CR (4th) 195 at 202)

^{^[15]} R v. Windle (1952) 2 QB 826; R v. Holmes (1953) 1 WLR 686.

^{^[16]} Stapleton v. The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358; The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182

^{^[17]} Slater, Eliot. “The M’naghten Rules And Modern Concepts Of Responsibility.” The British Medical Journal 2, no. 4890 (1954): 713–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20330320.

^{^[18]} People v. Carlin (1909) N. Y. 448, 87 N. E. 805.

^{^[19]} Commonwealth v. Cooper (1914) 219 Mass. 1, 106 N. E. 545; Banks v. Commonwealth (1911) 145 Ky. 800, 141 S. W. 380.

^{^[20]} Sonawane, Ajay M, and Radhika S Bhonsle. Defense of Insanity in India and England: Comparative Legal Paradigm

^{^[21]} “Insanity as a defence to a Criminal Charge.” Columbia Law Review 16, no. 2 (1916): 150. https://doi.org/10.2307/1110838.

^{^[22]} “Browne, Medical Jurisprudence, 11; 3 Witthaus & Becker, Medical Jurisprudence, (2nd ed.) 432.

^{^[23]} Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya v. State of Kerala, 1967 CriLJ 494

^{^[24]} Sharma, K. M. “DEFENCE OF INSANITY IN INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 7, no. 4 (1965): 325–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43949854.

^{^[26]} S 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); S Yeo, “Reformulating Diminsihed Responsibility: The New South Wales Experinece” (1999) 20 SingLR (forthcoming).

^{^[27]} Yeo, Stanley. “IMPROVING THE DETERMINATION OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY CASES.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1999, 27–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24867778.

^{^[30]} Yeo, Stanley. “IMPROVING THE DETERMINATION OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY CASES.” Supra

^{^[31]} Walton v. The Queen, (1978) 66 Cr. App. R 25 at 30.

^{^[32]} “The American Law Institute’s Insanity Test.” Duke Law Journal 1959, no. 2 (1959): 317–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1371206.

^{^[33]} Commonwealth v. Chester, 150 N.E.2d 914 (Mass. 1958).

^{^[34]} Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Digital Privacy Of Children – A Need For Special Legislation By - Merlin Mary D

ACID VIOLENCE IN INDIA By - Kunal Kumar & Md. Zaki Ahmad Kaifi

“A MIRAGE OF ESTABLISHING UNIVERSAL CYBER JURISDICTION” By: Laxmi Sagar PR & Tarun KM

Implementation Of “The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972” At Dudhwa National Park & On The Tharu Tribe Of Uttar Pradesh, India. By : Shreyee Tarafdar

Freedom Of Speech And Expression Vis-À-Vis Sedition Law In India By : Ananya Singh

“A Critical Analysis Into The Existing Provision For Insanity As A Defence Under Section 84 of IPC, 1860” By - Swagat Soumyaranjan

Legal Position Relating To Marital Rapes In India: A Critical Appraisal By - Aditya

Right To Information As A Part Of Constitutional Rights: A Critical Analysis by - Neelam Jhajharia

The International Legal Personality Of Non-State Actors By - Kaushik Subramanya

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION OF TESTS USED TO DETERMINE INSANITY WHILE DECIDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 84 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 By: Mohini Radha

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation 2

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation