In India, the effects of a development project on nature and on people are judged in different rooms. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is carried out under the EIA Notification, 2006, by environmental regulators, for projects of a listed type and size. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is carried out under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by land acquisition authorities, and only when land is compulsorily acquired. This article examines what that separation costs. It identifies three problems: social harms that escape assessment altogether, consultation that is split across several forums, and decisions taken without a full view of a project's consequences. It reviews signals from the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal that environmental and social questions cannot be kept apart, and draws on the World Bank, the European Union and South Africa for workable models. It concludes by proposing five reforms that can be introduced within India's present constitutional and statutory framework, beginning with amendments to the EIA Notification that the Union can make on its own.
Suicide is a complex issue that continues to exist in Indian society even today. Some individuals may feel that ending their lives is the only way to escape the difficulties and challenges they are facing. When such an attempt does not result in death, it is considered an attempt to commit suicide. Over time, the law relating to attempt to commit suicide in India has changed considerably. Earlier, under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, an attempt to commit suicide was made a punishable offence, and this approach was often criticised because a person who survives a suicide attempt may already be facing serious emotional, social or personal difficulties and may require support and care rather than punishment. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 brought an important change by recognising the severe stress faced by persons attempting suicide and emphasising care, treatment and rehabilitation. Subsequently, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 removed the general offence of attempt to suicide while retaining criminal liability only where the act is done with the intention of compelling or restraining a public servant from discharging official duties. This provision of BNS is particularly relevant to hunger strikes, which have historically been used in India as a method of protest to address grievances and demand governmental action. This article examines the changing legal approach towards attempted suicide and the legal position of hunger strikes in the context of criminal law and constitutional freedoms. It argues that a hunger strike should not automatically be treated as criminal offence and highlights the importance of examining the intention of the person and the circumstances of each case before applying Section 226 of the BNS.
Commercial space activity has shifted from state-led exploration to a mixed ecosystem of private launch providers, satellite operators, constellation managers, space-tourism ventures and increasingly autonomous systems. These actors create public benefits, but also expose people, property, aircraft, spacecraft and the orbital environment to risks crossing territorial boundaries. The legal difficulty is that the entity controlling an operational risk may be a corporation, while international responsibility and treaty claims attach principally to States. An individual whose property is damaged by debris cannot independently initiate a Liability Convention claim. This creates a gap between international responsibility, operator-level fault and access to compensation.
Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML) disguises the proceeds of crime through legitimate cross-border trade by employing techniques such as over-invoicing, under-invoicing, multiple invoicing, phantom shipments, and misdescription of goods. Opaque corporate structures and divergent national regulatory frameworks further complicate its detection. Adopting a doctrinal approach, this article critically examines India's legal framework for combating TBML under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the Customs Act, 1962, and applicable banking regulations, with reference to relevant Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. It identifies key regulatory weaknesses, including fragmented institutional oversight, difficulties in tracing ultimate beneficial ownership, reliance on trade documentation, and limitations in cross-border enforcement. The article also examines the dual role of trade finance instruments, particularly letters of credit and documentary collections, which facilitate international commerce but may also be exploited to legitimise suspicious transactions. It argues that statutory provisions alone are insufficient to address TBML effectively. An integrated, risk-based regulatory approach is necessary, incorporating coordinated enforcement, improved inter-agency information sharing, technology-assisted trade monitoring, greater corporate transparency, and stronger international cooperation.
The Right to Publicity has emerged as a significant legal concept in the protection of an individual’s identity against unauthorised commercial exploitation. An individual’s name, image, voice, likeness, and other distinctive attributes may possess substantial commercial value, yet their use without consent raises serious concerns regarding privacy, dignity, autonomy, and intellectual property. This paper examines the evolution and legal recognition of the Right to Publicity, with particular emphasis on the Indian legal framework and its comparative development in the United States and the European Union. In India, the right has primarily developed through judicial interpretation as an extension of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, supported by principles of intellectual property protection and the common law of passing off. Landmark judicial decisions, including ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, and Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, illustrate the judiciary’s efforts to prevent the unauthorised commercial appropriation of personal identity. The paper further analyses emerging challenges arising from social media, artificial intelligence, deepfakes, digital avatars, and virtual platforms, which have made the reproduction and commercial exploitation of personal identity increasingly accessible and difficult to regulate. It also examines the tension between publicity rights and constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and expression, artistic creativity, satire, and legitimate public discourse. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative approach, the study argues that India’s existing fragmented legal framework requires greater clarity and consistency. It recommends the enactment of dedicated legislation defining the scope of publicity rights, establishing effective remedies, and incorporating appropriate safeguards for freedom of expression. The paper ultimately emphasises the need to balance commercial interests with individual dignity, technological innovation, and the fundamental principle that every person should retain meaningful control over the commercial use of their identity.
The transformation of entertainment through digital technologies has created a complex regulatory challenge for contemporary legal systems. Online gaming has emerged as an important component of India's digital economy, generating opportunities in software development, electronic sports, creative industries, digital entrepreneurship and technological innovation. Simultaneously, the expansion of online money gaming has raised serious concerns regarding financial vulnerability, compulsive gaming behaviour, consumer deception, data protection, cybercrime and the protection of minors. The conflict between economic innovation and social protection has consequently become a significant issue in Indian constitutional and regulatory law.
Against this background, Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which establishes a national legislative framework for the development of electronic sports and online social games while prohibiting the offering, facilitation, advertising and financial processing of online money games. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026, which came into force on 1 May 2026, provide an implementation framework for the statutory scheme. The legislation represents a substantial departure from earlier approaches that frequently relied upon distinctions between games of skill and games of chance, as well as a fragmented combination of state gambling laws and general information technology regulations.
This paper critically examines the legislative objectives, institutional arrangements, prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms of the Act. Particular attention is given to the constitutional distribution of legislative powers under Articles 245, 246 and 248 and the Seventh Schedule; the relationship between Entry 34 of the State List and Entry 31 of the Union List; the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g); the equality principle under Article 14; personal liberty under Article 21; and the implications of digital surveillance and search powers for informational privacy. The analysis also evaluates the relevance of leading Indian judicial decisions concerning gambling, games of skill, commercial freedom and proportionality.
A comparative assessment of the United States and the United Kingdom illustrates the different ways in which legal systems respond to online gaming risks. Whereas the United States combines federal restrictions with substantial state-level regulatory autonomy, the United Kingdom employs a licensing-oriented framework under the Gambling Act 2005. These approaches provide useful, although not directly interchangeable, models for evaluating India's prohibition-centred strategy.
The paper argues that protecting vulnerable users is a legitimate and important legislative objective, but the effectiveness and constitutional sustainability of regulation depend upon precise definitions, transparent classification, proportionate enforcement, procedural safeguards and independent review. It recommends a comprehensive regulatory approach incorporating evidence-based policymaking, safeguards against unlawful offshore operations, effective grievance redressal, privacy-preserving age verification, consumer education and periodic legislative evaluation. The central conclusion is that digital gaming governance must reconcile public welfare with constitutional accountability and technological development.
