The informal sector is a significant and expanding component of many economies across the world. However, compared to their counterparts in the formal sector, workers in the informal sector frequently do not have the same legal protections and social benefits. As a result, they may be more susceptible to exploitation, unstable income, and limited access to basic necessities like healthcare and education. These issues can be addressed and the wellbeing of workers in the informal sector promoted with the help of labour laws and social protection measures. These regulations can increase social security benefits, enhance working conditions, and give people access to chances for training and education. Numerous obstacles must be overcome in order to strengthen labour laws and provide social protection for workers in the unorganised sector, including a lack of political will, insufficient funding, and difficulty locating and contacting them. Nevertheless, effective interventions can result in better livelihoods and a reduction in inequality and poverty, making these laws an important tool for promoting inclusive and sustainable development.
Volume 5, Issue 4 / 2023
Articles · 7
The legislative framework governing medical practice in India has gone too far in favour of therapeutic immunity. The primary legislations like the Indian Medical Councils Act, 1956, the Charter of Patients’ Rights, et al impose multifarious ethical obligations on medical practitioners but imbibe no corresponding strict penal provisions. This concern is more felt in the usage of artificial intelligence in medical procedures. The current legal infrastructure makes the apportionment of liability in artificial intelligence-assisted surgeries having unfortunate outcomes arduous. The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Copyright Act, 1957 impose liability on the manufacturer or developer when an AI-driven technology is involved. However, given that AI has “intelligence” of its own and imitates human “thinking” and decision-making processes through the technology of Deep Machine Learning, the designer of algorithms cannot be solely held liable. This predicament is alarming, considering the dismaying statistics of the dystopia of robotic surgeries. Further, the absence of informed consent or tiered consent might connote medical malpractice in the context of AI-assisted surgeries. The practitioner being the “expert” is ethically expected to render such treatment that is best for the patient, but the patient’s right to self-determination also cannot be disregarded. The Bolam and Bolitho Tests impose liability on the medical practitioner in case of the application of unconventional treatment methods, but so far, precedents have ruled in favour of the doctors exploiting the grey area surrounding the informed nature of the consent. It is also argued that AI-assisted surgeries can be classified as clinical trials under the law. This further raises questions concerning the fundamental right to health of the patient enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative to introduce appropriate legislation regulating the use of AI in surgical procedures to address the lapses and inadequacies in the current legal infrastructure.
Third-party arbitrations are on the rise with third parties being called upon in an arbitration dispute in order to provide justice to the aggrieved party. However, the Indian laws say little when the question of the rights and liabilities of a third-party arises. This blog ponders over different statutory rights as well as the liabilities of third parties in arbitration. It also focuses on different views taken by the constitutional courts and what doctrine is being used for bringing a third-party into an arbitration, with or without their consent, by interpreting various sections of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. In the end, the author comments upon the existing jurisprudence for third-party arbitration and calls upon the legislature to recognise different rights and liabilities through various amendments.
The term “marine scientific research” refers to a broad range of scientific disciplines concerned with the research and understanding of oceans, marine flora and fauna, and physical interfaces with the solid earth and the atmosphere, such as “biology, biotechnology, geology, chemistry, physics, geophysics, hydrography, physical oceanography, and ocean drilling and coring.” The primary objective of this type of exploration is “to observe, explain, and eventually understand sufficiently well how to predict and explain changes in the natural (marine) world.” Thus, marine scientific research aids in the pragmatic application of the marine resources, the protection of the marine ecosystem, safer routing, and military applications of the water, as well as a better overall understanding of the planet. Marine scientific research, for example, is important in determining the position of oilfields, paving the way for the use of maritime oil resources. Furthermore, marine scientific research is critical for the preservation and safeguarding of the underwater ecosystem since it aids in the understanding of local marine ecosystems as well as the substances and circumstances that may affect or damage them. This paper will be focusing over the legal analysis of the regulatory structure present to govern the Marine Scientific Research.
The present case raised the issue of whether the High Court, in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, has the authority to protect an individual's right to life during a National Emergency. The aforementioned judgement was widely seen as a lamentable event in the annals of the Court's chronicles. The primary focus of the case was to the interpretation of Article 226, which has a wider scope compared to Article 32, since it serves to enforce rights that extend beyond those deemed basic. The case raised the inquiry of whether Article 226 has the capacity to protect an individual's fundamental right to life in times of emergency, even if such protection is not explicitly provided for by Article 21. The Court's ruling established that the inherent right to life, which beyond the scope of the Constitution, might be upheld via the application of Article 226. The ADM Jabalpur case stands as a significant event in the annals of the Court's history, underscoring the crucial role of adopting constitutionalism as a means to protect individual rights and defend the principles of justice.
The Indian Patent Act governs the granting and protection of patents in India, including those related to pharmaceuticals. Historically, India has implemented certain provisions in its patent laws that are aimed at balancing the interests of public health, access to medicines, and promoting innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. These provisions have had a notable impact on the pharmaceutical industry, both domestically and internationally. One significant provision is Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. This provision imposes restrictions on the grant of patents for new forms of known substances, unless they demonstrate enhanced efficacy compared to the known substance. This provision is intended to prevent "ever greening" or extending the patent life of existing drugs by making minor modifications without substantial therapeutic benefits. It has been a subject of debate and has led to legal challenges by pharmaceutical companies seeking patent protection for incremental innovations. Another provision that affects the pharmaceutical industry is the compulsory licensing mechanism outlined in Section 84 of the Indian Patent Act. Compulsory licensing can be invoked in cases of national emergencies, public health crises, or when the patented drug is not available at an affordable price. The Indian Patent Act has also been a factor in the growth of the Indian generic pharmaceutical industry. India is known as the "pharmacy of the developing world" due to its ability to produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs.
While many countries such as Canada and much of Europe, provide comprehensive protections including marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws, other regions, particularly in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia, continue to criminalize same-sex relationships. This research examines the constitutional protections for gender equality, with a focus on LGBTQ+ rights in India and the world. Drawing on landmark legal developments, the research highlights key constitutional frameworks that safeguard LGBTQ+ rights, particularly focusing on equality and non-discrimination principles. In India, the decriminalization of same-sex relationships through Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) marked a significant step toward LGBTQ+ equality. International human rights bodies, such as the United Nations, advocate for LGBTQ rights, urging member states to align their national laws with global human rights standards. This includes the decriminalization of homosexuality, legal recognition of gender identity and protection against hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Additionally, the paper analyzes the impact of religious freedom arguments, free speech, and shifting political climates on LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in conservative jurisdictions. With specific focus on nations like the U.S., UK, and Canada, the paper explores ongoing debates surrounding marriage equality, gender identity and societal stigma that hinder further progress and concludes with recommendations on how both Indian and global legal systems can address emerging challenges to build more inclusive societies.