INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY IN INDIAN COMPANIES BY: APARAJITA PATEL

Authors: APARAJITA PATEL

Registration ID: 108847 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8847

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: aparajita.patel1404@gmail.com

Page No : 29 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-55992267/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVA

BALANCING LIBERTY AND STATE POWER: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ARTICLE 21 AND EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS IN INDIA BY - SHAKTISINH V PARMAR

Authors: SHAKTISINH V PARMAR

Registration ID: 108846 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8846

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: shaktisinhp0@gmail.com

Page No : 11 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-12817957/BALANCING LIBERTY AND STATE POWER: A CRITICAL EXAM

ACCELERATING DIGITALIZATION FOR DISABILITY JUSTICE: ADDRESSING ACCESSIBILITY CHALLANGES IN THE MODERN ERA BY - PAREKH RIDDHI KANUBHAI & DR.MAYURI PANDYA

Authors: PAREKH RIDDHI KANUBHAI & DR.MAYURI PANDYA

Registration ID: 108844 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8844 & IJLRA8845

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: prof.riddhiparekh@gmail.com & mayuri.himanshu@gmail.con

Page No : 14 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-46534812/ACCELERATING DIGITALIZATION FOR DISABILITY JUSTICE

THE CURIOUS CASE OF SARADHA: A TALE OF CHIT FUNDS AND PONZI SCHEMES IN INDIA BY - ANJALI BHATT

Authors: ANJALI BHATT

Registration ID: 108843 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8843

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: anjalibhatt46@gmail.com

Page No : 28 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-99885783/THE CURIOUS CASE OF SARADHA: A TALE OF CHIT FUNDS

EVOLVING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY IN ENGLAND AND THE IMPACT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY: SWATI.V & NITHIYA SURIYA.M

Authors: SWATI.V & NITHIYA SURIYA.M

Registration ID: 108841 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8841 & IJLRA8842

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: vswati.law@vistas.ac.in & nithiyasurya.law@vistas.ac.in

Page No : 20 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-84931215/EVOLVING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY: A CRITICAL EXAMINAT

THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OVER BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION BY: - DHIRAJ KUAMR SHARMA

Authors: DHIRAJ KUAMR SHARMA

Registration ID: 108840 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8840

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: sharmadhirajkumar123@gmail.com

Page No : 24 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-85675153/THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OVER BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE

THE UNFINISHED STRUGGLE: MARITAL RAPE IN INDIA AND WORKPLACE HARASSMENT BY - PATCHA LAKSHMI SANJANA, SREEVEDA KULKARNI & TUMMALA SRUJANA

Authors: PATCHA LAKSHMI SANJANA, SREEVEDA KULKARNI & TUMMALA SRUJANA

Registration ID: 108837 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8837, IJLRA8838 & IJLRA8839

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: sanjanapatcha@gmail.com, veda.20289@gmail.com & srujanatummala1605@gmail.com

Page No : 20 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-19355121/THE UNFINISHED STRUGGLE: MARITAL RAPE IN INDIA AND

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ITS LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ITS CONTROL: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY - SUMIT KUMAR BHARTI & ANUSHKA DUTTA

Authors: SUMIT KUMAR BHARTI & ANUSHKA DUTTA

Registration ID: 108835 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8835 & IJLRA8836

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: bhartisumit911@gmail.com & anushkadutta2424@gmail.com

Page No : 15 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-16826461/CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ITS LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ITS

COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED WORKS BY: GUNJAN RATHORE

Authors: GUNJAN RATHORE

Registration ID: 108834 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8834

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: gunjanrathore.jodhpur@gmail.com

Page No : 15 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-16826875/COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED WORKS

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES BY - ANJALI BHATT

Authors: ANJALI BHATT

Registration ID: 108833 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA8833

Year : Dec -2024 | Volume: II | Issue: 7

Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India

Email Id: anjalibhatt46@gmail.com

Page No : 20 | No of times Downloads: 0065

DOI Link :: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/12.2024-81141935/STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

International journal for legal research and analysis

Abbreviation:IJLRA

ISSN:2582-6433

Website:https://www.ijlra.com/

Accessibility:Open Access

License:Creative Commons 4.0

Submit Manuscript:Click here

Licensing:

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] “Viktor Mayer-Schönberger & Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think 6 (2013).”

[2] “Ira S. Rubinstein, Big Data: The End of Privacy or a New Beginning?, 3 Int'l Data Privacy L. 74, 74-76 (2013).”

[3] “danah boyd & Nicole B. Ellison, Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, 13 J. Computer-Mediated Comm. 210, 210-230 (2008).”

[4] “Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 8/2014 on the Recent Developments on the Internet of Things, 14/EN WP 223 (2014).”

[5] “W. Kuan Hon et al., The Problem of 'Personal Data' in Cloud Computing: What Information is Regulated?—The Cloud of Unknowing, 1 Int'l Data Privacy L. 211, 211-228 (2011).”

[6] “Margot E. Kaminski, The Right to Explanation, Explained, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 189, 189-218 (2019).”

[7] “Ponemon Institute, Cost of a Data Breach Report 2021 (2021).”

[8] “Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power 8 (2019).”

[9] “Christopher Kuner, Regulation of Transborder Data Flows under Data Protection and Privacy Law: Past, Present and Future 10-15 (OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 187, 2011).”

[10] “Edward Lee, The Right to Be Forgotten v. Free Speech, 12 J.L. & Pol'y for Info. Soc'y 85, 85-112 (2015).”

[11] “Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 3/2012 on Developments in Biometric Technologies, 00720/12/EN WP193 (2012).”

[12] “Avi Goldfarb & Catherine E. Tucker, Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising, 57 Mgmt. Sci. 57, 57-71 (2011).”

[13] “Anupam Chander & Uyên P. Lê, Data Nationalism, 64 Emory L.J. 677, 677-739 (2015).”

[14] “Ann Cavoukian, Privacy by Design: The 7 Foundational Principles, Info. & Privacy Comm'r of Ont. (2011).”

[15] “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295; M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.”

[16] “Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148.”

[17] “R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.”

[18] “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.”

[22] “Bhatia, Gautam. “The Supreme Court's Right to Privacy Judgment – I: Foundations.” Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 27 Aug. 2017.”

[23] “The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India), § 43A.”

[25] “Apar Gupta, Commentary on Information Technology Act 123 (2011).”

[26] “Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, Gazette of India, pt. II sec. 3(i) (Apr. 11, 2011).”

[27] “Vakul Sharma, Information Technology Law and Practice 312 (4th ed. 2015).”

[28] “Nandan Kamath, Law Relating to Computers, Internet and E-Commerce 201 (5th ed. 2012).”

[29] “Talat Fatima, Cyber Crimes 156 (2011).”

[30] “Farooq Ahmad, Cyber Law in India 89 (4th ed. 2013).”

[31] “Pavan Duggal, Textbook on Cyber Law 178 (2014).”

[32] “Biswanath Prasad Samal v. Union of India, AIR 2019 Cal 287.”

[33] “The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India), § 72A.”

[34] “Rodney D. Ryder, Guide to Cyber Laws 234 (2nd ed. 2016).”

[35] “Karnika Seth, Computers, Internet and New Technology Laws 167 (2013).”

[36] “Vijay Pal Dalmia, Indian Cyber Law 201 (2017).”

[37] “R.K. Chaubey, An Introduction to Cyber Crime and Cyber Law 289 (2nd ed. 2012).”

[38] “The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India), § 72A.”

[39] “Yatindra Singh, Cyber Laws 145 (6th ed. 2016).”

[40] “Nishith Desai Associates, Indian Legal and Tax Considerations 78 (2018).”

[41] “Anuj Agarwal v. Union of India, WP(C) 7123/2018 (Del. HC, Mar. 1, 2019).”

[42] “Vakul Sharma, Information Technology Law and Practice 356 (5th ed. 2019).”

[43] “Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, Rule 3.”

[58] “Reserve Bank of India, Storage of Payment System Data, RBI/2017-18/153 (Apr. 6, 2018).”

[60] “Reserve Bank of India, Storage of Payment System Data – Clarification, RBI/2018-19/216 (June 26, 2019).”

[61] “Anirudh Burman & Bhargavi Zaveri, Regulatory Governance Under the PDP Bill: A Powerful Ship with an Unchecked Captain?, 54 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45, 45-52 (2019).”

[62] “Arindrajit Basu et al., The Localisation Gambit: Unpacking Policy Measures for Sovereign Control of Data in India, Centre for Internet & Society (Mar. 19, 2019).”

[63] “Basu, Hickok & Chawla, The Localisation Gambit: Unpacking Policy Measures for Sovereign Control of Data in India, The Centre for Internet and Society (2019).”

[64] “Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Recommendations on Privacy, Security and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector (July 16, 2018).”

[73] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, Bill No. 373 of 2019 (India).”

[84] “KPMG, Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: Impact Analysis, Feb. 2020.”

[85] “Deloitte, India's Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: Key Requirements and Impact Analysis, Mar. 2020.”

[86] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 34.”

[89] “Anirudh Burman, Will India's Proposed Data Protection Law Protect Privacy and Promote Growth?, Carnegie India (Mar. 9, 2020).”

[90] “Ernst & Young, Data Protection in India: All You Need to Know About Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, Jan. 2020.”

[91] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 57.”

[96] “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1.”

[97] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 20; GDPR, art. 17.”

[98] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 11, 30; GDPR, art. 7, 37.”

[99] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 33, 34; GDPR, ch. V.”

[100] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 57; GDPR, art. 83.”

[101] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 35.”

[104] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 27; GDPR, art. 35.”

[105] “Deloitte, Data Privacy and Protection: Challenges for Indian Companies, 14 (2019).”

[106] “KPMG, Personal Data Protection in India: Challenges and Opportunities, 22 (2020).”

[107] “PwC India, Cost of Data Protection Compliance for Indian Businesses, 8 (2021).”

[108] “Ernst & Young, Technical Challenges in Implementing Data Protection Measures in India, 17 (2020).”

[109] “Nishith Desai Associates, Data Localization: Impact on Indian Businesses, 9 (2019).”

[110] “NASSCOM, Skill Gap Analysis in Data Protection and Privacy Sector in India, 12 (2021).”

[111] “McKinsey & Company, Balancing Data Protection and Innovation in Indian Companies, 25 (2020).”

[112] “AZB & Partners, Cross-Border Data Transfers: Challenges for Indian Companies, 7 (2021).”

[113] “Trilegal, Implementing Data Subject Rights: Practical Challenges for Indian Businesses, 19 (2020).”

[114] “Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Consent Management in the Indian Data Protection Landscape, 11 (2021).”

[115] “J. Sagar Associates, Data Breach Notification: Compliance Challenges for Indian Companies, 15 (2020).”

[116] “S&R Associates, Impact of Data Protection Penalties on Indian Businesses, 8 (2021).”

[117] “Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., Reconciling Sector-Specific and General Data Protection Laws in India, 13 (2020).”

[118] “Khaitan & Co, Interpreting Ambiguities in Indian Data Protection Laws: A Business Perspective, 9 (2021).”

[119] “Boston Consulting Group, Cultural Challenges in Implementing Data Protection in Indian Organizations, 21 (2020).”

[120] “Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Gov't of India, Report of the Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (2021).”

[121] “NITI Aayog, Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture: Draft for Discussion, 28 (2020).”

[122] “Rishab Bailey & Smriti Parsheera, Data Localisation in India: Questioning the Means and Ends, NIPFP Working Paper No. 242 (2018).”

[123] “Smriti Parsheera, Protecting Privacy in India: The Roles of Consent and Fairness in Data Protection, Carnegie India (2020).”

[124] “Reserve Bank of India, Report of the Working Group on Digital Lending including Lending through Online Platforms and Mobile Apps (2021).”

[125] “NITI Aayog, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence #AIforAll, 84 (2018).”

[126] “Data Security Council of India, Cyber Incident Response Trends in India, 17 (2021).”

[127] “Internet and Mobile Association of India, Social Media in India 2021, 42 (2021).”

[128] “Information Commissioner's Office (UK), Data Protection Impact Assessments under the GDPR, 9 (2018).”

[129] “Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Recommendations on Privacy, Security and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector, 56 (2018).”

[130] “Rahul Matthan, Beyond Consent: A New Paradigm for Data Protection, Takshashila Discussion Document, 2017-03 (2017).”

[131] “Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 03/2013 on Purpose Limitation, 00569/13/EN WP 203 (2013).”

[132] “Cynthia Dwork, Differential Privacy: A Survey of Results, in Theory and Applications of Models of Computation 1-19 (Springer, 2008).”

[133] “OECD, The Path to Global Cooperation in Data Protection Enforcement, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 287 (2019).”

[134] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, Bill No. 373 of 2019 (India).”

[135] “Anirudh Burman, Will India's Proposed Data Protection Law Protect Privacy and Promote Growth?, Carnegie India (Mar. 9, 2020).”

[136] “KPMG, Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: Impact Analysis, Feb. 2020.”

[137] “Deloitte, India's Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: Key Requirements and Impact Analysis, Mar. 2020.”

[138] “Reserve Bank of India, Storage of Payment System Data, RBI/2017-18/153 (Apr. 6, 2018).”

[139] “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.”

[140] “Ernst & Young, Data Protection in India: All You Need to Know About Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, Jan. 2020.”

[141] “Data Security Council of India, Cyber Incident Response Trends in India, 17 (2021).”

[142] “Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 03/2013 on Purpose Limitation, 00569/13/EN WP 203 (2013).”

[143] “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, § 57.”

[144] “Cynthia Dwork, Differential Privacy: A Survey of Results, in Theory and Applications of Models of Computation 1-19 (Springer, 2008).”

[145] “Int'l Labour Org., Protection of Workers' Personal Data: An ILO Code of Practice (1997).”

[1] Lazar, J. Managing digital accessibility at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Univ Access Inf Soc 21, 749–765 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00792-5

[2] P. Acosta-Vargas, S. Luján-Mora and L. Salvador-Ullauri, "Evaluation of the web accessibility of higher-education websites," 2016 15th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Istanbul, Turkey, 2016, pp. 1-6

[3] AlMeraj, Z., Alhuwail, D., Qadri, R. et al. Understanding mindsets, skills, current practices, and barriers of adoption of digital accessibility in Kuwait’s software development landscape. Univ Access Inf Soc 23, 1427–1446 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00980-5

[4] Sophie, Mitra., Qin, Gao. (2023). 3. Disability and social policy: Global evidence and perspectives. Global Social Policy, doi: 10.1177/14680181221146030

[5] Alina, Engelman., Leyla, Craig., Alastair, Iles. (2022). 1. Global Disability Justice In Climate Disasters: Mobilizing People With Disabilities As Change Agents.. Health Affairs, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00474

[6] Anastasia, Liasidou. (2013). 5. Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability & Society, doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.710012

[7] Alina, Engelman., Leyla, Craig., Alastair, Iles. (2022). 1. Global Disability Justice In Climate Disasters: Mobilizing People With Disabilities As Change Agents.. Health Affairs, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00474

[8] Kate, Ching-Ching, Chan. (2023). 2. Disability Through the Lens of Justice. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198875611.001.0001

[9] Madhavi, Sripathi., T., S., Leelavati., Ramarao, Mopidevi., Susmitha, Kunchaparthi. (2024). Innovations in Closing the Digital Gap. Advances in computer and electrical engineering book series, 336-357.

doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-4111-7.ch014

[10] (2022). The Use of Inclusive Digital Technologies. 141-150. doi: 10.1201/9781003215998-12

[11] Georgia, van, Toorn. (2024). 3. Inclusion interrupted: Lessons from the making of a digital assistant by and for people with disability. Government Information Quarterly, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101900

[12] Oksana, Tymoshchuk., A.M., Pisco, Almeida. (2022). 5. Digital technologies as a promotor of well-being and inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: what is the current situation?. doi: 10.1145/3563137.3563161

[14] William, J., Triplett. (2023). 2. The Role of Technology in Promoting Diversity and Inclusion. Cybersecurity and Innovative Technology Journal, doi: 10.53889/citj.v1i1.306

[1] Wade, E.C.S. and Bradley, A. W. Constitutional and Administrative law 10th Ed. (Longman, London, 1985) P.678; Hood Philips, O. and Paul Jackson, Constitutional and Administrative law, 7th Ed. (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1987) P.702.

[2] Herbert Broom, A Selection of Legal Maxims, 10th Ed. (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1939), pp. 21

[3] The society was not complex and the civil law was redimentary. The subject of Anglo-Sexon Justice did not cover offences except violent ones and theft. In such a society when the law could not compel an accused or a suspect to submit himself to Justice and pay fines, it could not be imagined that a tenant or an individual might sue his Lord, or the over Lord-the King, for damages; Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law, Vol. 1 (1968) P.P. 37-38

[4] Street, H. Governmental Liability: A comparative study, (Cambridge University Press, 1953) P.1

[5] somervell, "The State as Defendant." 33 A.L.J., (1959), P.149

[6] Holdsworth, W.S. A History of English Law, IX 2nd Ed. Matheuven and Co., Ltd., London, (1944), P.12 Pollock and Milland supra note 6 at P515.

[9] Viscount Canterbury v. Attorney General (1842):1 Ph.306

[10] Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd., (1920) A.C.P.508 at P.P. 530-531

[11]Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company v. Lords Commissioner of Admiralty, (1947) K.B. 794 at pp. 801

[14] This device was adopted by statute and still operates for criminal liability for traffic offences; Road Traffic Act, 1972 S.188(8), Barnett v. French (1981) 1 W.L.R. 848

[15] Glanville Williams, Crown Proceedings (1948) pp.17-18

[18] Crown Proceedings Committee Report, emd.2842 (1927)

[19] Section 2(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, There is no liability in tort outside the Act, Tranik v. Lennox (1985) IWLR 532

[25] (1952)2 All.E.R.149; Delvin J. expressed his dissatisfaction thus: "before I leave this case, I must express my uneasy feeling that Justice may not have been done because the material evidence before me was not complete and something more than an uneasy feeling that whether Justice has been done or not, it certainly will not appear to have been done' at p. 155.

^{^[5]} Confirmed Parliament's authority to modify any segment of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Mandated the president's approval for the constitution amendment bill, enforced since November 5, 1971.

^{^[6]} Power of parliament to amend the constitution and procedure.

^{^[8]} During the Emergency of 1975–1977, the Thirty-ninth Amendment to the Constitution of India, enforced on August 10, 1975, exempted the election processes of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Lok Sabha Speaker from review by Indian courts.

^{^[11]} Article 26 to 32 deals with the structure and power of the legislative branch.

^{^[12]} Article 2 to 25 deals with provision of fundamental right and freedoms

^{^[14]} Qanuni assassi jumhuri i Isla ‘ mai Iran Constitution .

[1] Law Commission of India 84th Report on Rape and allied offenses-some questions of substantive law, procedure and evidence (1980)

[2] Bharatiya Nyaya (second) Sanhita Bill § 63, No.1, Acts of parliament,2024.

[3] Bharatiya Nyaya (second) Sanhita Bill § 63, No.1, Acts of parliament,2024.

[4] the sexual harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) act, no.14 acts of parliament,2013

[5] the sexual harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) act,§2(o)no.14 acts of parliament,2013

[6] Randall M, Venkatesh V. The Right to No: The Crime of Marital Rape, Women’s Human Rights, and International Law. Brooklyn J Int Law [Internet]. 2015. Jan 1 [cited 2022 Feb 18];41(1).

[7] Raj A, McDougal L. Sexual violence and rape in India. Lancet [Internet]. 2014;383(9920):865.

[8] Vibhute, K. I. “‘RAPE’ AND THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AT THE CROSSROADS OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM: BETWEEN PATRIARCHIAST AND GENDER NEUTRALIST APPROACH.” Journal of the

Indian Law Institute, vol. 43, no. 1, 2001, pp. 25–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951752. Accessed

16 Sept. 2024.

[9] Spohn, Cassia C. “THE RAPE REFORM MOVEMENT: THE TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW AND RAPE LAW REFORMS.” Jurimetrics, vol. 39, no. 2, 1999, pp. 119–30. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29762593. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[10] RESICK, PATRICIA A. “THE TRAUMA OF RAPE AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.” The

Justice System Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 1984, pp. 52–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20877729. Accessed

16 Sept. 2024.

[11] Kumari, Ved, and Ravinder Barn. “SENTENCING IN RAPE CASES: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF

JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN INDIA.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–25. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826588. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[12] Steketee, Gail, and Anne H. Austin. “Rape Victims and the Justice System: Utilization and Impact.” Social Service Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 1989, pp. 285–303. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30012020. Accessed 16

Sept. 2024.

[13] Gelles, Richard J. “Power, Sex, and Violence: The Case of Marital Rape.” The Family Coordinator, vol. 26, no. 4, 1977, pp. 339–47. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/581754. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[14] Rumney, Philip N. S. “When Rape Isn’t Rape: Court of Appeal Sentencing Practice in Cases of Marital and Relationship Rape.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 1999, pp. 243–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20468269. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[15] Upadhyay, Nidhi. “THE IMPACT OF NIRBHAYA PROTEST ON THE CONTEMPORARY INDIAN

WOMEN’S MOVEMENT.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 76, no. 4, 2015, pp. 885–88. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26575622. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[16] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, § 63, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,2023

[17] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, § 64, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,2023

[18] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, § 69, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,2023

[19] 9 Saptarshi Mandal, “The Impossibility of Marital Rape: Contestations Around Marriage, Sex, Violence and the Law in Contemporary India” 29(81) Australian Feminist Studies 255 (2014).

[20] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, § 63, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,2023

[21] Independent Thought v. U.O.I. & ANR, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4904.

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

[24] Bhodhisathwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty 1996, AIR 992.

[26] HT Correspondent. "Marital Rape Grave Offence, Illegal in Many Countries: Gujarat High Court." Hindustan Times, 18 Dec. 2023.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/marital-rape-grave-offence-illegal-in-many-countries-gujarat-high- court-101702912826753.html

[27] York, Kenneth M. “Defining Sexual Harassment in Workplaces: A Policy-Capturing Approach.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, 1989, pp. 830–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/256570.

Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

[28] Vishaka and Ors V, The State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011

[29] Rupan Deol Bajaj V. K.P.S.Gill,1996 AIR 309.

[30] HT Correspondent. "Pratibha Case: Driver Held Guilty." Hindustan Times, 6 Oct. 2010. https://doi.org/Saturday, Dec 14, 2024

[31] the sexual harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) act, no.14 acts of parliament, 2013

[32] Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors AIRONLINE 2012 SC 632

[33] Shivangi Prasad. "Tarun Tejpal Judgement: Reflection on Judicial Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases against Women and Way Forward." POSH at Work (Empanelled by Ministry of Women & Child Development.

Government of INDIA), 18 Oct. 2021,

poshatwork.com/tarun-tejpal-judgement-reflection-judicial-decisions-sexual-assault-cases-against-women-way-f orward/. Accessed 14 Dec. 2024.=

[34] "Kolkata Doctor Rape-murder Case: RG Kar, the Campus Was Victim's 'second Home'." THE ECONOMIC TIMES, no. Kolkata Doctor Rape case, 2024, https://doi.org/20-08-2024. Accessed 15 Sept. 2024.

[1] LL.M. Student at Hidayatullah National Law University

[2] LL.M. Student at Hidayatullah National Law University

[3] Trevor Buck, International Child Law, (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 3^rd edition, London, 2014)

[4] Study on Child Abuse: India (2007). Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, 2007 available at: www.wcd.nic.in/childabuse.pdf (visited on September 30, 2024)

[9] Section 15 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences lays down that:

1. “Any person, who stores or possesses pornographic material in any form involving a child, but fails to delete or destroy or report the same to the designated authority, as may be prescribed, with an intention to share or transmit child pornography, shall be liable to fine not less than five thousand rupees and in the event of second or subsequent offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.”

2. “Any person, who stores or possesses pornographic material in any form involving a child for transmitting or propagating or displaying or distributing in any manner at any time except for the purpose of reporting, as may be prescribed, or for use as evidence in court, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

3. “Any person, who stores or possesses pornographic material in any form involving a child for commercial purpose shall be punished on the first conviction with imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than three years which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than five years which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

[10] Just Rights For Children Alliance & Anr v. S. Harish & Ors., SLP(CRL) No. 3665-3666 of 2024.

[1] Andrew Ashworth, “Principles Of Criminal Law” 72 (2009).

[2] MatteoRizzolli and MargheritaSaraceno, “Better that X guilty person’s escape than that one innocent suffer” University of Milano-Bicocca Press, June 16, 2009.

[3] Byron M. Sheldrick, “Shifting Burdens and Required Inferences: The Constitutionality of Reverse Onus Clauses”, 44(2) U. torontofAc.l. rev. 179, 180 (1986).

[4] Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and Ors , (2011) 12 SCC 220.

[5]“That burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact, and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff.”

[7] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §105:“Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions- When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances”.

[8] David Hamer, “The Presumption of Innocence and Reverse Burdens: A Balancing Act”, Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 66, No. 1, p. 142, 2007.

[9] Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.

[10] Pooja Garg, “Shifting trends in Burden of Proof & Standard of proof: an analysis of the Malimath Committee report”,Manupatra.

available at: http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/33C9F78E-CCA3-454E-82D9

[11] Prasannjeet S. Baghel, Pratik P. Chaudhary, Praveen Kumar “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubts”, KIIT Law Journal. Available at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1922144.

[12]Prasannjeet S. Baghel, Pratik P. Chaudhary, Praveen Kumar “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubts”,Kiit Law Journal.

Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1922144

[13] M. Monir, “Textbook on Evidence Law”,Universal Publishing House, 2005.

[14] Dorothy K. Kagehiro and W. Clark Stanton, “Legal vs. Quantified Definitions of Standards of Proof”, Springer, Law and Human Behavior,Jstor Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jun.,1985), pp. 159-178. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393751.

[15]PoojaGarg, “Shifting trends in Burden of Proof & Standard of proof: an analysis of the Malimath Committee report”, Manupatra. available at: http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/33C9F78E-CCA3-454E-82D9-A2E693F4B5EE.pdf

[16]PoojaGarg, “Shifting trends in Burden of Proof & Standard of proof: an analysis of the Malimath Committee report”, Manupatra. available at: http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/33C9F78E-CCA3-454E-82D9-A2E693F4B5EE.pdf

[17]R.V.E. venkatachalaGounderArulmiguViswesaraswami v. V.P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548 : (2003) 8 SCC

752.

[18]V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762.

[19] “The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatised by the conviction . . . Moreover use of the reasonable doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned.”

[20] In Re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970), at pp. 361–64. See also the more recent elaboration of the rationale of the principle in R v. Oakes 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200 (1987), at pp. 212–214.

[21] Zuckerman, “The Burden Of Proof In Criminal Justice”, the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Part II, PN 267.

[23] R v. Oakes 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200 (1987), at pp. 212–214.

[24] Zuckerman, “The Burden Of Proof In Criminal Justice”, the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Part II, PN 267.

[26] Thomas Christopher Rider, “What is the Most Useful Standard of Proof in Criminal Law?”, Pragmatism Tomorrow 2013, Issue 1: No. 9.

Available at: http://www.pragmatismtomorrow.org/downloads/Essay009-RiderTC.pdf

[27] Thomas Christopher Rider, “What is the Most Useful Standard of Proof in Criminal Law?”,

available at: http://www.pragmatismtomorrow.org/downloads/Essay009-RiderTC.pdf

[28] Thomas Christopher Rider, “What is the Most Useful Standard of Proof in Criminal Law?”

available at: http://www.pragmatismtomorrow.org/downloads/Essay009-RiderTC.pdf.

[31]Rayaprolu Narayana Murthy v. RayaproluRamkrishna Sharma, 2002 AIHC 3151 (AP).

[32]M. NarsingaRao v. state of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 318 (322).

[38]SudiptoSarkar, VR Manohar , “Law Of Evidence” Lexis Nexis , 17^th edition 2010.

[39]“Just as in civil cases the balance of probabilities may be more readily fitted in one case than in another, so in criminal cases Proof beyond the reasonable doubt may more readily attend in some cases than others.”

[40]SudiptoSarkar, VR Manohar ,“Law Of Evidence” Lexis Nexis , 17^th edition 2010.

[41]State of West Bengal v. Orilaljaiswal, 1994 SC 1418, 1429.

[42]State of West Bengal v. Orilaljaiswal, 1994 SC 1418, 1429.

[43]Rawalpentavenkalm and Anr.v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC171.

[44]Rawalpentavenkalm and Anr.v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC171.

[45]Rawalpentavenkalm and Anr.v. State of Hyderabad[45], AIR 1956 SC171.

[48]SudiptoSarkar, VR Manohar , “Law Of Evidence” Lexis Nexis , 17^th edition 2010.

[49]KansamningalMikoi Devi v. kunamAchouba Singh, (2002) 1 GuLR 90 (Gau).

[51]MallappaSiddappaalakanur v. state of karnatake, (2009) 12 SCC 748 (755).

[52]MallappaSiddappaalakanur v. state of karnatake, (2009) 12 SCC 748 (755).

[53]Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 2577 (2582).

[54]Basavaraj v State of Maharashtra, 2009, CrLJ 2088 (Bom).

[55]BhaskarRamappaMadar v. State of Karnataka , 2005 CrLJ 108 SC.

[56]Rigo v. State of Kerala, 2010 CrLJ 1315 (Ker.).

[57]State of M.P. v. Chamaru, 2001 (2) JLT 161 (M.P.).

[62]Shivaji v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 56.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY IN INDIAN COMPANIES BY: APARAJITA PATEL

BALANCING LIBERTY AND STATE POWER: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ARTICLE 21 AND EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS IN INDIA BY - SHAKTISINH V PARMAR

ACCELERATING DIGITALIZATION FOR DISABILITY JUSTICE: ADDRESSING ACCESSIBILITY CHALLANGES IN THE MODERN ERA BY - PAREKH RIDDHI KANUBHAI & DR.MAYURI PANDYA

THE CURIOUS CASE OF SARADHA: A TALE OF CHIT FUNDS AND PONZI SCHEMES IN INDIA BY - ANJALI BHATT

EVOLVING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY IN ENGLAND AND THE IMPACT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY: SWATI.V & NITHIYA SURIYA.M

THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OVER BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION BY: - DHIRAJ KUAMR SHARMA

THE UNFINISHED STRUGGLE: MARITAL RAPE IN INDIA AND WORKPLACE HARASSMENT BY - PATCHA LAKSHMI SANJANA, SREEVEDA KULKARNI & TUMMALA SRUJANA

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ITS LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ITS CONTROL: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY - SUMIT KUMAR BHARTI & ANUSHKA DUTTA

COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED WORKS BY: GUNJAN RATHORE

STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES BY - ANJALI BHATT

LAW JOURNAL

IMPORTANT LINKS

ETHICS & POLICY

Citation 2

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

Citation

[43]Rawalpentavenkalm and Anr.v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC171.