Volume 7, Issue 6 / 2025

When a person or an organisation cannot pay its debts as they fall due, or when the realisable value of its assets is not enough to cover its liabilities, it is said to be insolvent or bankrupt. An efficient insolvency and bankruptcy law provides for the reorganisation of an entity so that it becomes financially sound in a time-bound manner. To address the shortcomings and flaws in India’s insolvency legislation, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted. The Code was drafted to consolidate the framework of insolvency law then spread across the Companies Act, 2013, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Further, the Code repealed the pre-existing Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Before the Code there was no mechanism to aid creditors, and the law was observed to tilt in favour of the debtor. The 2016 Code, in general, provides for adjudicating bodies, effective settlement mechanisms and a strengthening of creditors’ rights. A distinct regulatory agency, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, has been established to govern the procedure and to regulate entities such as insolvency professional agencies, insolvency professionals and registered valuers. To handle cases pertaining to corporate insolvency and bankruptcy, specialised tribunals, the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, have been designated. The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal and economic implications of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as well as the procedure concerning bankruptcy and insolvency. Further, the paper provides an in-depth analysis of the Code and highlights the major areas that still require legislative attention for the removal of gaps.

This essay examines the continuing debate between self-regulation and hierarchical regulation in high-risk sectors, with particular reference to the healthcare system in India. It traces the transition from the Medical Council of India (MCI) to the National Medical Commission (NMC) in order to assess whether self-regulation can genuinely prevent medical malpractice. The MCI, originally created to allow medical professionals to oversee their own conduct, ultimately failed on account of corruption and insufficient accountability, leading to its supersession. The NMC was established to put in place a better-organised regulatory framework, yet it has encountered difficulties of its own, including bureaucratic inefficiency and concerns about over-regulation. By comparing the two regulatory approaches, the paper identifies their respective advantages and drawbacks. Self-regulation offers professionals greater freedom and flexibility but is prone to conflicts of interest and weak enforcement. Hierarchical regulation, by contrast, secures uniform standards and external supervision but may stifle innovation through bureaucratic process. The paper concludes that a balanced regulatory system is essential if professional ethics are to be upheld while public safety is secured.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) transformed the corporate bankruptcy landscape in India by introducing a time-bound and creditor-driven process for resolving financial distress. The primary framework since the Code's inception has been the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Because of persistent delays, rising costs and an overwhelming caseload, however, the 2021 Amendment established the Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP), which is tailored to the particular needs of micro, small and medium enterprises. The paper compares the conceptual foundations, procedural distinctions, institutional procedures and practical implications of CIRP and PPIRP. Globally, including in India, the COVID-19 pandemic hurt businesses, financial markets and economies, and it increased the likelihood of financial difficulty for micro, small and medium enterprises. The Government implemented several measures to alleviate the pandemic's effects, including increasing the minimum amount of default for initiating the insolvency resolution process to Rupees One Crore and suspending the filing of applications for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of defaults arising during the one-year period beginning on March 25, 2020 and ending on March 24, 2021. The Government of India then amended the IBC (through an Ordinance dated April 4, 2021) and introduced a new method of insolvency resolution, specifically for firms classified as MSMEs, by adding a new Chapter III-A to the IBC that provides for the Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process. The corporate insolvency resolution process ("CIRP") for corporate persons, which include companies and limited liability partnerships, is governed by Chapter II of Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "IBC") and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (the "CIRP Regulations"). The pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (PPIRP) for MSMEs, as classified under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, is governed by Chapter III-A of Part II of the IBC and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2021 (the "Pre-Pack Regulations"). A brief comparison is made between the key provisions of CIRP and PPIRP as envisioned under the IBC and the relevant regulations adopted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ("IBBI").

The emergence of digital markets has fundamentally altered traditional concepts of competition and market dominance. Digital platforms operate through network effects, extensive data collection, algorithmic systems and interconnected ecosystems that enable a limited number of enterprises to exercise significant influence over market conditions and consumer behaviour. In such markets, competitive power is often exercised collectively or structurally by multiple enterprises functioning in an interdependent manner rather than by a single dominant entity. However, Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 focuses primarily on the abuse of a dominant position by an individual enterprise or a formally recognised group, which creates substantial limitations in addressing collective dominance in digital economies. This paper critically analyses the inability of the existing Indian competition law framework to regulate effectively the collective dominance arising in digital platform markets. It examines the distinctive characteristics of digital markets, including network effects, data concentration, platform dependency, multi-sided market structures and algorithmic coordination, which challenge conventional methods of determining relevant markets and assessing dominance. The study argues that the traditional single-firm dominance model under Section 4 is inadequate to capture the realities of digital ecosystem power, where anti-competitive effects may emerge through coordinated market influence without explicit agreements or formal monopolistic structures. The paper further undertakes a comparative examination of the European Union’s approach towards collective dominance and digital competition regulation, particularly under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Digital Markets Act. By analysing comparative jurisprudence and recent developments in digital competition law, the study highlights the need for reform within the Indian competition regime. It concludes that India requires a more adaptive and technology-oriented competition framework capable of recognising collective dominance and effectively regulating digital gatekeepers in order to ensure fair competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the evolving digital economy.

The Constitution of India is traditionally regarded as the supreme legal instrument governing the political, administrative, and judicial framework of the Republic. Constitutional jurisprudence generally analyses it through concepts such as constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, and the rule of law. This article advances a complementary theoretical framework by interpreting the Constitution through the principles of charitable trust law. While the Constitution is not legally a trust instrument, its structure, objectives, and operational philosophy display several characteristics that resemble the legal relationship between a charitable trust, its trustees, and its beneficiaries. The article argues that the Constitution may be understood as a document of trust established by the sovereign people of India for securing justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Within this conceptual framework, the Constitution functions as the trust deed; the people of India constitute the beneficiaries; the Government acts as the trustee entrusted with constitutional authority; the Preamble represents the charitable objects of the trust; Fundamental Rights correspond to the enforceable rights of beneficiaries; and the Directive Principles of State Policy embody the fiduciary obligations of the trustee towards society. The paper further proposes that the Doctrine of Basic Structure bears a functional resemblance to the equitable doctrine of cy-près, as both seek to preserve the foundational purpose of an institution while permitting necessary adaptation to changing circumstances. The study adopts doctrinal legal research supported by constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, trust law principles, the Constituent Assembly Debates, and scholarly literature. It does not contend that the Constitution is legally equivalent to a charitable trust; rather, it presents the trust analogy as an interpretative framework for understanding constitutional governance in fiduciary terms. Such a perspective highlights that governmental power is exercised not as an incident of ownership but as a public responsibility held on behalf of the people. The analogy also reinforces constitutional accountability, democratic legitimacy, judicial oversight, and the welfare-oriented nature of the Indian State. The article concludes that interpreting the Constitution through the jurisprudence of charitable trusts offers an intellectually coherent and normatively valuable perspective on constitutional governance. It demonstrates that constitutional institutions derive legitimacy from the people, remain bound by constitutional objectives, and exercise authority under continuing obligations of fidelity, transparency, and public welfare.

This paper explores the evolution of the right to privacy in India, evaluating its intricate relationship with human dignity and state sovereignty. By tracing the judicial shift from structural positivism to transformative constitutionalism, the study maps the trajectory from the early reluctance in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the landmark proclamation in K.S. Puttaswamy. It then examines the contemporary challenges posed by biometric technology and digital data collection, analysing how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act seeks to balance legitimate state interests with individual autonomy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming assisted reproductive technology (ART) by improving clinical decision-making, laboratory procedures, and treatment outcomes. AI-driven technologies are increasingly used in embryo selection, sperm assessment, ovarian stimulation planning, prediction of in vitro fertilization (IVF) success, and the automation of laboratory processes. These innovations have the potential to increase pregnancy and live birth rates while reducing human error and improving efficiency. Despite these benefits, the rising use of AI in reproductive medicine raises significant ethical, legal, and regulatory concerns, including algorithmic bias, patient privacy, informed consent, accountability for clinical decisions, and unequal access to advanced fertility care. Regulatory approaches also differ across countries, creating uncertainty regarding the safe and responsible implementation of AI in fertility treatment. This review examines the current applications of AI in ART, evaluates the available evidence on its clinical effectiveness, discusses the major ethical and legal issues, and compares existing regulatory frameworks in selected jurisdictions. It further explores current limitations, emerging trends, and future opportunities for integrating AI into reproductive medicine. Although AI has demonstrated considerable promise in enhancing fertility care, it should complement rather than replace clinical expertise. Future progress will therefore depend on transparent algorithms, comprehensive clinical validation, harmonized regulatory standards, and ethical governance that prioritizes patient safety, fairness, and accountability.

The maritime sector forms the backbone of global trade, facilitating the movement of nearly 90% of international goods. As globalization accelerates, the shipping industry is adopting increasingly advanced digital technologies to improve efficiency and streamline operations. This transformation, however, has brought significant cybersecurity risks. The integration of operational and information technologies has spread and expanded vulnerabilities across vessels and port infrastructure, exposing the sector to a wide range of cyber threats. Cyberattacks on maritime systems can severely disrupt supply chains and compromise crew and cargo safety, resulting in substantial economic losses. Real-world incidents affecting major shipping companies and infrastructure show the growing scale and impact of such threats. In response, international and national bodies have developed frameworks and guidelines to encourage cyber risk management in maritime operations. Despite these efforts, serious underlying legal and jurisdictional challenges remain. The global and interconnected nature of maritime activities makes it exceedingly difficult to assign responsibility for cyber incidents. This study explores the gravity of cybersecurity risk and the vulnerability it poses to the current maritime regime. It also analyses the practices adopted by several developed and developing nations in safeguarding their maritime infrastructure. Finally, it proposes measures that need to be undertaken to strengthen the cybersecurity regime of the maritime sector.