The government balances **national security** with **individual civil liberties** by enacting laws that restrict rights only to the extent necessary to protect the nation, while ensuring such restrictions are **reasonable, legal, and proportionate**. Constitutional safeguards like **Articles 19 and 21** guarantee freedoms, but these can be curtailed in the interest of **sovereignty, integrity, public order, or security**. Courts play a key role in reviewing such laws to prevent misuse, ensuring that national security measures do not unduly infringe upon fundamental rights like free speech, privacy, and due process.

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if a cheque is dishonored due to insufficient funds or a closed account, the payee can initiate criminal proceedings against the drawer. The legal remedies include filing a complaint in a magistrate’s court, which may result in imprisonment up to 2 years, a fine up to twice the cheque amount**, or both. Before filing the complaint, the payee must send a legal notice within 30 days of receiving the bank’s return memo and allow 15 days for the drawer to make payment. If unpaid, the complaint must be filed within 30 days after that period.

Yes, an arbitration clause can survive the termination of the main contract. Courts in India, including the Supreme Court, have held that the **arbitration clause is a separate and independent agreement** (the doctrine of separability). This means even if the main contract is terminated, rescinded, or declared void, the arbitration clause can still be invoked to resolve disputes arising from or relating to that contract.

Pre-incorporation contracts are generally not enforceable against a company under Indian law because a company, not being in legal existence at the time of the contract, cannot be bound by or enforce such agreements. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and supported by case law, a company cannot ratify contracts made before its incorporation. However, the promoters who enter into such contracts may be personally liable, unless a fresh contract is adopted by the company after incorporation with the consent of the other party.

Media trials can significantly impact the **right to a fair trial**, a fundamental right under **Article 21 of the Indian Constitution**. Sensationalized reporting and public judgment by the media can prejudice the investigation, influence witnesses, and create bias among judges and jurors, thereby undermining the **presumption of innocence**. While media has the right to report under **freedom of speech (Article 19)**, this must be balanced against the accused’s right to a fair and impartial trial. Courts have often cautioned against parallel trials by media that interfere with the administration of justice.

Under Indian criminal law, the defense of insanity is provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is based on the **McNaghten Rule**. It states that an act is not an offence if the accused, due to unsoundness of mind at the time of the act, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. To successfully claim this defense, the accused must prove **legal insanity**, not just medical insanity, through credible evidence. Courts apply this defense strictly, and the burden of proof lies on the accused, making it a limited and rarely accepted defense.

Yes, anticipatory bail provisions are increasingly under threat due to recent statutory changes like the **Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023**, and state-level laws that restrict its availability for serious offences such as those under **POCSO, NDPS, UAPA**, and **economic crimes**. These reforms limit judicial discretion and curtail the scope of pre-arrest protection, raising concerns about the erosion of **personal liberty** and the **right to legal remedy** in grave criminal matters.

AI-generated content should not be eligible for traditional copyright protection because copyright law is based on the principle of **human authorship**, requiring creativity and originality from a natural person. Since AI lacks consciousness and intent, works created solely by machines without human input fall outside the scope of most existing copyright frameworks. However, if a human significantly contributes to the creation process—by providing prompts, curating outputs, or editing—**limited copyright protection** may be granted to the human for their creative contribution. This issue remains debated globally, with jurisdictions like the U.S. and India largely rejecting copyright for purely AI-generated works.

Customary international law impacts Indian domestic law through the principle that **customs accepted as binding by the international community** are generally recognized, even without formal legislation. Indian courts have held that **customary international law is part of domestic law** unless it contradicts existing statutes or constitutional provisions. This means India may follow international norms related to human rights, environmental protection, or humanitarian law, even if they are not codified in Indian statutes. However, in case of conflict, **domestic law prevails**, and courts require legislative backing for enforcement of specific international obligations.

Yes, non-state actors can be held accountable under international humanitarian law (IHL) especially in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II impose obligations on all parties to a conflict, including armed groups that are not official state forces. Non-state actors are required to respect rules such as protecting civilians and prohibiting torture or targeting non-combatants. While IHL does not provide direct enforcement mechanisms, individuals within these groups can be prosecuted for war crimes by national courts or international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC)