Yes, India should consider recognizing punitive damages in torts, especially in mass tort cases, to deter wrongful conduct, ensure corporate accountability, and provide justice beyond compensatory relief. This can strengthen consumer and environmental protection, provided it is balanced with safeguards against excessive or arbitrary awards.

Legal positivism is not inherently incompatible with social justice, but it may fall short in promoting it if laws are unjust or fail to reflect the needs of a diverse society. Since legal positivism focuses on the law as it is, not as it ought to be, it may overlook moral or social considerations unless these are embedded in the legal system through democratic processes.

Judicial activism can be justified in a constitutional democracy when it protects fundamental rights, ensures accountability, or addresses legislative or executive inaction. However, it must remain within constitutional limits to avoid undermining the separation of powers and democratic principles.

The IT Act, 2000, is outdated in addressing modern challenges like generative AI and the dark web. It lacks specific provisions for AI-generated content, deepfakes, and encrypted dark web activities, requiring significant updates or new legislation to manage these emerging threats effectively.

Coercion means forcing someone to enter into a contract through threats or unlawful acts. In Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889), a widow was pressured to adopt a boy for religious rites, and it was held as coercion.
Undue influence happens when one person uses a position of power or trust to unfairly influence another's decision. In Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890), a spiritual leader convinced a follower to gift property, which was held to be undue influence.
The main difference is that coercion involves physical or legal threats, while undue influence involves mental or moral pressure through a trusted relationship.

To draft and file a PIL, you need:
1. A clear statement of facts showing public interest
2. Details of violation of fundamental or legal rights
3. Documents supporting the claim (reports, affidavits, photos, representations)
4. Identity and credentials of the petitioner
5. Legal grounds and reliefs sought
6. Proof of prior representations to authorities, if any
Facts must be accurate, non-frivolous, and show larger public harm or concern.

Focus on gathering circumstantial evidence, witness statements, and any indirect proof. Build the case through legal presumptions, conduct, and admissions, while being honest about risks and advising alternative strategies if needed.

My role is to immediately ensure the client's safety, file a habeas corpus or writ petition, collect medical and documentary evidence, and initiate legal action against the responsible officials while guiding the client through proper legal remedies.

Gather all relevant evidence, inform the appropriate legal or regulatory authority, seek court protection if needed, and ensure the client is advised independently and transparently at every step.

Court:-
Pros: Binding decision, suitable for serious cases
Cons: Time-consuming, costly, public
ADR:-
Pros: Faster, cheaper, private, flexible
Cons: May not be binding, depends on cooperation
Choose based on urgency, cost, privacy, and nature of dispute.