No, the existing IT Act, 2000 is not sufficient to handle emerging threats from generative AI and the dark web, as it was not designed with these technologies in mind and lacks comprehensive, specific provisions for their regulation. Recent government advisories and proposed legislation acknowledge these gaps, emphasizing the need for updated frameworks to address new risks posed by AI and advanced cyber threats

Humanitarian intervention should not automatically override state sovereignty under the UN Charter, as the Charter prioritizes respect for sovereignty and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. However, many argue that when a government commits grave human rights abuses, intervention may be justified to protect fundamental rights, though this remains a contentious and unresolved issue in international law

Yes, the right to property under Article 300A can be elevated to a fundamental right again, but this would require a constitutional amendment by Parliament. Currently, it is only a constitutional right and not a basic feature of the Constitution, so its status can be changed through the legislative process

No, triple talaq legislation is not a violation of the right to religious freedom because the Supreme Court held that instant triple talaq is not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25. The law was enacted to uphold the fundamental rights of equality and dignity for Muslim women, which take precedence when a religious practice is found to be arbitrary or discriminatory

Yes, the polluter-pays principle should be strictly applied to government entities as well, since any polluter—public or private—must be held financially accountable for the environmental damage they cause to ensure fairness, accountability, and effective environmental protection. Exempting government bodies would undermine the principle’s goal of promoting responsible behavior and sustainable development across all sectors

Legal positivism is not inherently incompatible with social justice in a diverse democracy, but it separates law from morality, meaning unjust laws can still be valid if properly enacted. This can make it harder to challenge or reform laws solely on social justice grounds, but does not prevent a democracy from pursuing social justice through legislative or constitutional means

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens, interpreting the constitution in light of contemporary needs, and providing a check on the misuse of power by the executive and legislature

es, you can seek interim compensation while your Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case is pending before the court. Section 143A of the NI Act empowers the court to order the drawer (defendant) to pay interim compensation to the complainant (you), provided the accused has pleaded not guilty in a summary or summons case, or upon framing of charge in other cases. The interim compensation cannot exceed 20% of the cheque amount and must be paid within 60 days from the order (extendable by 30 days for valid reasons). If the accused is later acquitted, you must repay the compensation with interest.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, strengthens the legal framework for addressing dowry deaths by enhancing penalties (minimum 7 years to life imprisonment under Section 80) and streamlining evidentiary standards, such as presuming guilt if harassment or cruelty is proven "soon before death" . It introduces procedural improvements like mandatory forensic investigations, fast-track trials, and acceptance of digital evidence (e.g., WhatsApp messages, payment records) under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) . However, its effectiveness remains challenged by deep-rooted cultural norms normalizing dowry, underreporting due to stigma, and evidentiary gaps in domestic abuse cases . While the BNS improves legal rigor, systemic issues like judicial delays and societal resistance to abandoning dowry practices persist, limiting its transformative impact

Indian courts interpret 'harassment' and 'cruelty' in marital disputes broadly, focusing on both physical and mental harm. 'Cruelty' under the law includes any wilful conduct likely to drive a spouse to suicide or to cause grave injury to life, limb, or health (physical or mental), as well as harassment aimed at coercing unlawful demands like dowry. Courts recognize that cruelty is not limited to physical abuse but also encompasses persistent emotional or psychological torment, such as false allegations, verbal abuse, or social humiliation. The impact on the victim’s mental well-being and the pattern of conduct are key factors, with isolated incidents rarely sufficing—consistent, intolerable behavior is usually required to establish cruelty. Harassment is often linked to dowry demands but can include any coercive or degrading conduct that causes distress. Courts also caution against misuse of these provisions for personal vendetta, emphasizing that allegations must be genuine and substantiated