The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not introduce clearer definitions or additional safeguards regarding the phrase “soon before her death” in dowry death cases compared to the existing Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The interpretation of “soon before her death” continues to rely on judicial precedents, which clarify that it means a proximate—not immediate—link between cruelty for dowry and the woman’s death, and remains a flexible, case-specific assessment rather than a fixed timeframe

The doctrine of basic structure, while safeguarding constitutional core values, has been criticized for enabling judicial overreach by allowing courts to overrule democratically enacted laws and amendments, thereby limiting parliamentary sovereignty. However, supporters argue it is essential to maintain checks and balances and protect democracy from arbitrary changes by the legislature

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility in response to increasing juvenile involvement in heinous crimes is controversial; while it may address public concerns about accountability, it risks ignoring the developmental immaturity and reformative needs of children. Instead, existing provisions already allow juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for serious offenses, balancing societal safety with child rights and rehabilitation

The right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21, does not automatically override national security concerns in cases of surveillance. Instead, courts and legal frameworks require a balanced approach: any surveillance must be supported by law, pursue a legitimate state aim, and be proportionate and necessary to the threat, ensuring that privacy is not violated arbitrarily or excessively. This balance upholds both individual rights and collective security in a constitutional democracy.

Article 356 can be constitutionally justified in modern federalism as an emergency provision to protect the constitutional order if a state government fails to function according to the Constitution. However, its history shows frequent political misuse, undermining state autonomy and federal principles, leading commissions and the Supreme Court to stress that it should be invoked only as a last resort with stringent safeguards. Thus, while justified in rare, genuine breakdowns of constitutional machinery, Article 356 is often criticized as a tool for political advantage, and its use must be strictly limited to preserve true federalism.

The death penalty can be constitutionally justified under Article 21, as the Supreme Court has held that deprivation of life is permissible if done according to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law, and only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Morally, however, its justification remains contentious—while some argue it serves as deterrence and retribution for heinous crimes, others contend it is inherently cruel and incompatible with the right to life and human dignity. Thus, while constitutionally valid in India, its moral legitimacy is still widely debated.

A standard form contract is rarely truly “consensual” because it is typically offered on a “take it or leave it” basis, leaving the weaker party with little or no opportunity to negotiate the terms. While such contracts may technically require consent, the lack of real bargaining power and meaningful choice undermines genuine consent, making it largely formal rather than substantive

Yes, Indian contract law should evolve to explicitly recognize economic duress as a ground for voidable contracts, as it protects parties from being unfairly coerced into agreements through illegitimate financial pressure. Although current law addresses economic duress under coercion, undue influence, and public policy, a clearer and more direct recognition would strengthen safeguards against unfair bargaining, especially in complex commercial contexts

India should recognize punitive damages in torts, especially in mass tort cases, as they serve not only to compensate victims but also to deter egregious, reckless, or profit-driven misconduct by powerful entities. While Indian courts have occasionally awarded punitive damages, their use is limited and not codified, highlighting the need for a clearer legal framework to ensure accountability and fair relief in large-scale harm cases

Strict liability is still a valid doctrine for many industrial accidents, as it holds parties accountable for harm from inherently dangerous activities but allows certain defenses like acts of God or third-party actions. However, for ultra-hazardous industries—especially those posing grave risks to public health and the environment—absolute liability, which allows no exceptions or defenses, is increasingly favored to ensure full accountability and public safety