The rapid expansion of online real-money gaming in India has generated a sharp constitutional collision between the State’s power to prohibit activities harmful to public health, order and morality, and residual claims of economic liberty under Article 19(1)(g) and personal autonomy under Article 21. This paper examines that collision after two decisive 2025–26 developments: the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which imposes a pan-India prohibition on all “online money games” irrespective of skill or chance, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd., which held that the introduction of monetary stakes converts an activity into betting and gambling under Entry 34 of List II, renders it res extra commercium, and strips it of Article 19(1)(g) protection. The paper argues that the legislative and judicial displacement of the classical skill–chance distinction, anchored in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala (1957) and subsequent High Court jurisprudence, has produced a uniform prohibition of unprecedented breadth. It examines three interlocking tensions: federal competence arising from Parliament’s occupation of a traditionally State field; proportionality and arbitrariness challenges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) now pending in Head Digital Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India; and the normative implications of characterising every smartphone as a “virtual common gambling house.” While the regulatory response rests on legitimate and documented concerns of addiction, financial ruin and money-laundering, its categorical character leaves unresolved questions of overbreadth, legislative competence and the outer limits of economic liberty in the digital economy.
The object of this article is to assess the anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects of patent pooling in light of the competition laws in India. This article also attempts to analyze the interrelation between patent pooling and the legal validity of the same in view of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. As patent pooling is a nascent concept on the Indian jurisdiction, there is need for a critical analysis as to how the patent pooling arrangements shall prevail under the Indian antitrust legal structure. Patent pooling may entail numerous economic benefits to the consumer in terms of ease of access to essential goods and also increased competition in the market, however, in absence of adequate regulations the same can also give way to collusive and anti-competitive behavior between horizontal firms competing in the market. Patent pools can also be a case of cross-licensing of patents between horizontal players by way of an agreement which is per se anticompetitive under the competition laws in India. In the light of the above statement, application of the per se rule will be deemed to be inappropriate because of the economically beneficial and pro-competitive effects of patent pools. This article evaluates such effects of patent pooling on competition in the market. The article concludes by stating that patent pooling although not being prima facie anticompetitive in nature, it can be consequentially anti-competitive and adequate guidelines in respect of patent pools are necessary to ensure that the economic benefits are well received and the competition in the market in not diminished to the detriment of the consumer.
This paper examines the definition of ecocide, offers criticism on the definitions proposed and compares the proposed definition of the crime to the existing provision criminalizing war-time ecocide. It analyses the practicalities i.e., the incidence of liability and tthe incidence of reparations, if ecocide were to be considered as an international crime under the Rome Statute. The incidence of liability of peace-time ecocide will be evaluated under three circumstances: where private corporations carry out ecocidal acts in violation of domestic law, where private corporations carry out ecocidal acts under State sanction and where ecocidal acts are perpetrated by the State or any of its instrumentalities
With the change of societal structure , a new concept has emerged that can be called as LIVE -IN -RELATIONSHIP . Although this concept is prevalent in western countries. But in regard to INDIA it has emerged so my article is related to maintenance in criminal law with special women who LIVE-IN -RELATIONSHIPS . Firstly I have discussed some historical aspects of women and then the general meaning of the term maintenance. Later on provide a certain brief of the criminal code and grounds for refusal to grant maintenance . In criminal law the term married is used so my article is focused on the position of women in LIVE -IN - RELATIONSHIP. And further discussed whether the provision of maintenance in regard with live-in relationship and judicial interpretation in determining the position of women in live -in -relationship , further discussed some landmark cases which provide the scope to live -in -relationship in India. and the lastly discussed about the overview position of women in regard to maintenance in india
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) community is the sexual minority of India, which has been unfairly discriminated in legal and social identity since time immemorial. The civil rights of the LGBTQ community like the right to adopt, right to marriage, etc are also not being recognised at par with their heterosexual counterparts. Equal adoption rights are necessary for the LGBTQ community to live a family life with children’s similar to their heterosexual counterpart. However, the adoptions laws of India are discriminatory towards the LGBTQ community and work as an impediment for them in fully exercising their adoption rights. Such discriminatory adoption laws which are based on the binary understanding of gender violates different principles which are enshrined under Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The adoption laws of India are also not in line with the principle of the best interest of the child as they exclude potential prospective adoptive parents from the process of adoption. The researcher in this research paper will critically analyse the LGBTQ right to adopt in India and will try to make a case for equal adoption rights for the LGBTQ Community
Rent-to-own scheme is one of the Islamic financing products which have been introduced based on the well-known and widely practiced Islamic concept of transaction, which is ijarah. The purpose of this concept paper is to explain the legal provisions that enable Islamic financial institutions to adopt rent-to-own; and to analyse the elements of ijarah as required by the Shariah are fulfilled in the rent-to-own scheme within the Malaysian context. Two legal issues were discussed, i.e., whether the Islamic banks are entitled to acquire the property and in the event of customer’s death, who shall continue paying the rent to the bank. Few decided cases were discussed in order to illustrate issues that could arise in relation to practical legal aspects of ijarah in Malaysia. This paper concludes that the rent-to-own scheme is in line with Shariah. The Bank Negara Malaysia has issued several guidelines and regulations to further ensure that it is Shariah-compliant. Therefore, such kind of scheme can be utilized by the community, particularly given the benefits or maslahah that it gives to the community
