Both strict and absolute liability are valid doctrines, but they differ in their application and the exceptions allowed. Strict liability, while still relevant, may not always be sufficient for addressing the high-risk nature of modern industrial accidents. Absolute liability, with its no-exceptions approach, is often seen as a more comprehensive way to ensure accountability and compensation in such cases.

Yes, there is a strong argument for recognizing punitive damages in torts, especially in mass tort cases, in India. Punitive damages, designed to punish egregious misconduct and deter future harm, can provide a crucial tool for holding responsible parties accountable and ensuring fair compensation for victims.

Yes, there is a strong argument for recognizing punitive damages in torts, especially in mass tort cases, in India. Punitive damages, designed to punish egregious misconduct and deter future harm, can provide a crucial tool for holding responsible parties accountable and ensuring fair compensation for victims.

Yes, Indian contract law should evolve to recognize economic duress as a ground for voidable contracts. While the Indian Contract Act, 1872, doesn't explicitly mention it, the concept of economic duress has been gradually incorporated through interpretations of existing provisions, particularly Section 16 (undue influence).

Standard form contracts, by their nature, present a challenge to the notion of true consensual agreement because they are drafted by one party and offered to the other on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. While implied consent and a duty to read are often invoked to enforce them, the inherent power imbalance and lack of negotiation can undermine the idea of genuine agreement.

The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. While it does not explicitly prohibit the death penalty, the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality, provided it is imposed through due process of law and in the "rarest of rare" cases. The death penalty's moral justification is a complex issue with arguments for and against its use as a form of punishment.

The question of whether the right to privacy should override national security concerns in cases of surveillance is a complex one without a simple answer. Both are fundamental rights that must be balanced. While national security is crucial for the safety and well-being of a nation, the right to privacy is essential for individual autonomy and the functioning of a democratic society.

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility in light of increasing juvenile involvement in heinous crimes is a complex issue with arguments for and against. While some argue that it is necessary for public safety and to hold perpetrators accountable, others emphasize the importance of child development, rehabilitation, and potential for future societal contributions.

The Basic Structure Doctrine was established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. Ans. The Basic Structure Doctrine has been criticized for its vague definition, allowing judicial overreach, undermining parliamentary sovereignty, and creating uncertainty in constitutional amendments.

The IT Act, 2000, has limitations in addressing the emerging threats from generative AI and the dark web. While it provides a legal framework for cybercrimes, it lacks specific provisions to handle the complexities of AI-generated content, particularly when it comes to misinformation, manipulation, and the use of AI for malicious activities on the dark web.