Yes, to an extent. The expanded scope of the PMLA, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), raises serious concerns about infringement of fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.

Key concerns include:
• No presumption of innocence (reversal of burden of proof)
• Stringent bail conditions (twin conditions under Section 45)
• Lack of transparency (no access to ECIR, unlike an FIR)
• Widened investigative powers without judicial oversight

➡️ While the Court upheld these provisions citing the gravity of economic offences, critics argue they compromise due process and personal liberty, thus partially infringing on fundamental rights.

Partially. The recognition of digital assets and virtual currencies under recent regulatory proposals (like taxation in Budget 2022 and draft crypto bills) shows a regulatory acknowledgment, but it does not fully align with the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) statutory mandate.

???? The RBI has consistently opposed private cryptocurrencies, citing risks to:
• Monetary policy control
• Financial stability
• Consumer protection

???? RBI’s mandate under the RBI Act, 1934 and Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 gives it authority over currency and payment systems, but virtual currencies are not legal tender.

???? Meanwhile, the government’s steps (like taxing crypto at 30%) signal recognition as digital assets, not as currency, creating a regulatory grey area.

Yes, trial by media can infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial.

Media coverage that:
• prejudges the accused,
• influences public opinion,
• pressures the judiciary, or
• reveals confidential case details
can compromise the presumption of innocence, impartiality of judges, and due process, thus violating Article 21.

➡️ Courts have repeatedly cautioned media to avoid sensationalism and maintain restraint to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

The legality of AI-generated evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly after its amendments and in the context of the digital era, is a complex and evolving issue. As of now, AI-generated evidence is not explicitly recognized, but certain provisions and interpretations may allow for its conditional admissibility under Indian law.

⸻

✅ 1. Legal Framework for Digital Evidence in India

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now largely replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), Section 65B (now Section 63 of the new Act) deals with electronic records. Key points:
• Electronic records are admissible as secondary evidence if accompanied by a Section 65B certificate (now Section 63(4)).
• This includes data from computers, smartphones, CCTV, etc., but does not yet directly include AI-generated outputs.

⸻

✅ 2. Can AI-Generated Evidence Be Considered “Electronic Record”?

AI-generated content (e.g., deepfakes, AI-written documents, synthetic voice) can be considered an electronic record if it meets the following conditions:
• It is stored or produced by digital means.
• A human certifies it under Section 65B/63(4) with proper chain of custody.
• The system generating it is reliable, and its process is explainable or transparent.

???? But challenges arise:
• AI systems lack human authorship → No direct accountability
• Opaque AI models (black boxes) make it hard to verify authenticity
• Courts require verifiability and attribution, which AI often lacks

⸻

⚖️ 3. Judicial Trends and Interpretation

Indian courts have started dealing with AI-assisted or AI-related evidence, although not AI-generated in the strictest sense:
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): Strict compliance with Section 65B is mandatory for electronic evidence.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): Reiterated the importance of the certificate for admissibility.
• Recent cybercrime cases: Accept AI-assisted voice recognition and image verification, but not as standalone proof — only as corroborative evidence.

Live-in relationships do not merit the same full legal recognition and protection as marriage under personal and secular laws in India. However, courts and legislation have gradually extended certain legal protections to partners in live-in relationships, particularly under secular and constitutional frameworks.

1. Under Personal Laws

Personal laws in India (like Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi personal laws) do not recognize live-in relationships as marriages. Rights related to:
• Inheritance
• Alimony
• Legitimacy of children
• Maintenance

are primarily available only to legally married spouses under personal laws. For example:
• Under Hindu law, marriage is a sacrament and legally recognized union; live-in partners have no such recognition.
• Under Muslim law, a nikah is necessary for spousal rights.

2. Under Secular Laws

Some secular laws have evolved to partially protect live-in relationships:

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005
• Recognizes “relationships in the nature of marriage”
• Offers protection to women from abuse in live-in relationships
• Grants residence rights and maintenance under certain conditions
• Courts determine if the relationship has marriage-like characteristics (shared household, duration, mutual care, etc.)

B. Legal Precedents

Indian courts have given several progressive rulings:
• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013):
• SC laid down criteria to identify a live-in relationship “in the nature of marriage”
• Stated that not all live-ins qualify for legal protection—only those resembling marriage
• Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006):
• Live-in relationship between consenting adults is not illegal
• Tulsa & Ors. v. Durghatiya & Ors. (2008):
• Children born from long-term live-in relationships are legitimate and can inherit
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010):
• Live-in relationships fall under Article 21 (right to life and liberty)

3. Gaps and Limitations

Despite progress, live-in couples are not equivalent to married couples in several ways:
• No automatic inheritance rights (except in specific judgments)
• No tax benefits, joint property rights, or spousal privileges
• Children’s legitimacy still debated in personal law contexts
• Social stigma and moral policing continue to affect live-in couples, especially in rural or conservative areas

Yes, parties in a cheque bounce case can settle the matter outside court.
They must then inform the court by filing a joint application for compounding.
The court will record the compromise and close the case.

If the accused in a cheque bounce case is ready to pay, the case can often be settled or closed, depending on the stage:
• Before filing the case: If payment is made within 15 days of notice, no case is filed.
• After filing, before or during trial: The case can be compounded (settled legally), and punishment avoided.
• After conviction: Paying may help get lesser punishment or fine instead of jail.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by the drawer’s account.

The NIA is empowered under Section 3 of the Act to investigate and prosecute offences listed in the
Schedule, including terrorism, arms trafficking, and offenses under the UAPA. Its jurisdiction was expanded in
2019 to include crimes committed outside India involving Indian citizens or interests.

Though technically permissible under Section 438 of the CrPC, courts often exercise restraint in granting
anticipatory bail in NIA cases due to their gravity. Special courts under the NIA Act have exclusive jurisdiction