This paper examines the economic, social, and legal vulnerabilities of platform-based gig workers in India.
Women’s entrepreneurship drives economic growth and promotes gender equality in India. Despite this, many women face financial and digital hurdles that hinder their involvement. Initiatives from the government, such as Stand-Up India and Mahila e-Haat, aim to provide financial support and access to digital marketplaces, helping women entrepreneurs thrive. This study uses various cases to illustrate these programs’ positive effects while addressing ongoing challenges like financial illiteracy and bureaucratic barriers. To overcome these challenges steps like financial inclusion, digital literacy, and mentorship opportunities, can be taken to empower women-led businesses and create a more inclusive economy.
This study explores the impact of India’s 2020 farm laws on farmers, examining the reforms, resistance sparked, and their broader implications for agricultural sustainability. These laws aim to modernize the sector by increasing market freedom and reducing government control. Supporters believed it would empower farmers by providing more selling options, while critics feared it would favor big corporations and undermine Minimum Support Price (MSP) protection. Massive protests led to the laws being repealed in 2021, highlighting farmer concerns.
The global refugee crisis has intensified due to conflicts, persecution, and climate change, challenging international legal frameworks designed to protect displaced individuals. Despite the existence of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, refugees often face restrictive immigration policies, xenophobia, and inadequate living conditions in host countries. The principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of refugee protection, is frequently undermined by national security concerns and political interests. This article explores the complexities of forced migration, international human rights laws, and the challenges of global responsibility-sharing, emphasizing the need for comprehensive policy reforms and stronger international cooperation to safeguard refugee rights.
Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly revolutionizing industries by automating decision-making processes in banking, healthcare, governance, and law. While AI-driven decision-making enhances efficiency and scalability, it also raises significant concerns regarding privacy, fairness, and accountability. India’s legal framework, particularly the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), attempts to address these challenges, but its silence on AI-specific issues calls for a more comprehensive regulatory approach. This article examines the legal, ethical, and policy challenges of AI-powered automated decision-making (ADM) in India and proposes solutions for a balanced regulatory framework. The Privacy and Security Risks of AI Decision-Making AI systems require vast amounts of personal data to function, raising significant privacy concerns. In India, AI-driven ADM systems collect information from social media, financial transactions, and biometric databases like Aadhaar. While these technologies improve service delivery, they also risk unauthorized access, data misuse, and mass surveillance. The DPDP Act, 2023, aims to protect personal data through consent-based collection and stringent penalties for non-compliance. However, it does not explicitly regulate AI-specific concerns such as algorithmic profiling, predictive analytics, and real-time surveillance. This gap leaves room for potential data breaches and misuse of sensitive information. Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination A significant challenge of AI-driven ADM is the risk of algorithmic bias, which can lead to unfair outcomes and discrimination. AI models learn from historical data, which often contains biases related to gender, caste, and socio-economic status. If unchecked, AI-based recruitment tools, credit-scoring systems, and facial recognition technology can reinforce discriminatory patterns, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities. Unlike the EU’s GDPR, which enforces transparency in AI decision-making, India’s legal framework does not explicitly address algorithmic fairness. The absence of clear mandates for fairness audits, bias detection, and data diversity standards increases the likelihood of systemic discrimination in AI-powered decision-making processes. Lack of Transparency and Explain ability One of the most pressing concerns in AI and ADM is the lack of transparency. Many AI models operate as “black boxes,” making decisions without clear explanations. This opacity is particularly problematic in high-stakes sectors like healthcare, law enforcement, and finance, where AI-driven decisions can have life-altering consequences. The DPDP Act does not mandate AI explain ability or grant individuals the right to challenge AI-driven decisions. Unlike Article 22 of the GDPR, which gives individuals the right to contest automated decisions, India’s legal framework lacks strong provisions for algorithmic accountability, leaving affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Legal Framework and Regulatory Challenges in India India’s current legal landscape for AI and data protection remains fragmented. The DPDP Act, 2023, establishes fundamental data protection guidelines but does not regulate AI-specific concerns. Other relevant laws include: Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) – Governs cybersecurity and data protection but lacks AI-specific provisions. Aadhaar Act, 2016– Regulates biometric data collection but does not address AI-driven profiling. National Data Governance Framework Policy, 2022 – Facilitates data sharing for AI research while ensuring security. EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Comparative Perspective) – Aims to classify AI systems by risk level and enforce transparency requirements, something India has yet to implement. India’s lack of a dedicated AI regulation leaves gaps in accountability, making it necessary for policymakers to introduce AI-specific guidelines for fairness, transparency, and accountability. Accountability and Ethical Responsibility A critical issue in AI-driven ADM is determining liability. When AI makes a flawed or harmful decision—such as rejecting a job application, denying a loan, or misdiagnosing a patient—who is responsible? The developer, the deploying organization, or the government? Currently, India does not have clear legal provisions assigning liability for AI-related harm. Some legal experts propose a “human-in-the-loop” model, where AI decisions are subject to human oversight, particularly in sensitive domains. Others advocate for AI liability frameworks, ensuring that AI developers and users bear legal responsibility for algorithmic errors and discriminatory outcomes. Case Studies: AI and Legal Precedents in India and Beyond Legal actions against AI systems are rising globally. In India, ANI vs Open AI is a landmark case where the Delhi High Court reviewed copyright claims against AI-generated content. Internationally, Microsoft, GitHub, and Open AI have faced lawsuits over unauthorized data usage in AI training models. While India has begun addressing AI-related disputes, it still lacks a robust legal framework to regulate AI-driven harm effectively. Strengthening regulatory policies is crucial to address AI’s evolving risks. The case was filled in the us courts against the Microsoft, GitHub and Open AI for the violation of copyright. The case has been filled in us and Europe by the artist, more than 8500 authors, and media organization for staling the work. Mitigating Risks: Steps Towards Responsible AI To ensure AI is used responsibly in India, the following measures must be taken: Enact AI-Specific Regulations – Introduce laws addressing AI accountability, fairness, and transparency. Mandate Fairness Audits – Establish independent reviews to detect and mitigate algorithmic bias. Enhance Explain ability Requirements – Require AI systems to disclose decision-making logic, especially in critical sectors. Align with Global Standards – Adopt best practices from GDPR and the EU AI Act to ensure AI compliance. Strengthen User Rights and Redressal Mechanisms – Provide legal channels for individuals to challenge AI decisions and seek redress. Improve Data Protection Measures – Implement stricter encryption, anonymization, and security protocols for AI-generated data. Increase Public Awareness – Educate individuals on their rights regarding AI-driven decisions and available legal protections. FACT OF CONCERN In all over the world, the cases in the courts against the AI is increasing day by day, especially in us, Europe and now even in India. Increase in the cases in the courts also increases the concerns for the privacy of the individuals. According to the google, 50% of the bank scams and fraud are done through the AI. When there is an ADM there is no any limit for controlling and hence the frauds and scams increases. AI Implication in Credits AI has the potential to touch pretty much every aspect of the business of lending. Lending is an information-based business and many of the tasks performed by humans can
Inheritance in India refers to the legal transfer of a deceased person’s assets to their heirs, either through a will (testamentary succession) or according to succession laws in the absence of a will (intestate succession). The Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the inheritance laws for various religious communities, with specific provisions for each. The process involves drafting a valid will, appointing an executor, and, if necessary, obtaining probate for smooth transfer and resolution of any disputes among heirs.
INTRODUCTION Operation Neptune Spear was a pivotal military operation conducted by the United States on May 2, 2011, to eliminate Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Executed by the U.S. Navy SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU) under the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. Department of Defence, the raid took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was the result of years of intelligence gathering and strategic planning, culminating in a high-risk mission that ultimately led to bin Laden’s death. This paper examines the intelligence efforts, strategic execution, and geopolitical implications of Operation Neptune Spear, assessing its impact on U.S. national security and counterterrorism policies. Intelligence and Planning Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the CIA began collecting information on key individuals connected to or providing support to Bin Laden. THE FIRST CLUE Shortly after 9/11, the CIA began tracking individuals linked to bin Laden. A major early breakthrough came from a piece of luggage belonging to Mohammad Atta, the lead hijacker. The bag contained documents, hijacker instructions, and flight training manuals, confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement and bin Laden’s role. Intelligence efforts continued, with a CIA operative, Jalal, identifying bin Laden’s voice in transmissions from the Tora Bora Mountains, proving his continued influence. However, bin Laden evaded capture and resurfaced in Pakistan. (Washington Post), (CIA), (PBS). A MISTAKE Bin Laden relied on trusted couriers to maintain communication with Al-Qaeda. One, Ibrahim, made a fatal error on August 27, 2010, when he used a mobile phone in Peshawar, a city under CIA surveillance. This allowed the agency to track him to a suspicious compound in Abbottabad, which exhibited unusual security measures. The compound’s high walls, lack of digital communication, and residents’ habit of burning trash pointed to the presence of a high-value target. Surveillance identified a mysterious tall man, “The Pacer,” whose physical traits matched bin Laden’s. GREAT DISCOVERY Once the CIA identified Ibrahim’s location, they conducted further surveillance to assess the compound. The facility was situated in a highly secured area of Abbottabad, close to the Pakistan Military Academy. Several key factors indicated that the compound housed a high-value individual: Unlike other homes in the area, the compound had no telephone or internet connections, an unusual measure suggesting the need for secrecy. The residents burned their trash instead of disposing of it in the usual collection system, minimizing external exposure. A mysterious tall man, who never left the premises, was occasionally seen walking in the courtyard. Analysts referred to him as “The Pacer” due to his habitual pacing back and forth. His physical characteristics closely resembled those of bin Laden. After gathering substantial evidence, the CIA presented its findings to top U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama. While the intelligence was not 100% certain, the assessment strongly suggested that bin Laden was hiding in the Abbottabad compound. (bookshelf) Nail Into the coffin To further verify bin Laden’s presence in the compound, the CIA enlisted the help of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician. Dcotor Afridi was tasked with running a fake vaccination campaign in Abbottabad under the guise of administering hepatitis B vaccines. The objective of this covert operation was to collect DNA samples from individuals residing in the compound to confirm bin Laden’s identity. Dr. Afridi and his medical team visited the surrounding areas and attempted to gain access to the compound by offering free vaccinations. While the team was unable to directly obtain DNA from bin Laden or his immediate family, their efforts provided valuable intelligence on the residents and their movements. This reinforced the CIA’s confidence that bin Laden was indeed hiding inside the compound. (BBC) EXECUTION OF THE MISSION On the night of May 1, 2011, two stealth-modified Black Hawk helicopters carrying SEAL Team 6 with 24 officers departed from a U.S. base in Afghanistan and infiltrated Pakistani airspace undetected. Upon arrival at the compound, one of the helicopters experienced mechanical issues and crash-landed, though no personnel were injured. The SEALs quickly adjusted their strategy and proceeded with the mission. The team breached the compound and engaged in a brief firefight with bin Laden’s guards. Moving through the building, they encountered and neutralized several occupants before reaching the top floor, where Osama bin Laden was located. Bin Laden was shot and killed after resisting capture. His body was positively identified through facial recognition and DNA analysis. The SEALs collected valuable intelligence materials before exfiltrating the site. Due to the compromised helicopter, a backup aircraft was called in, and the damaged helicopter was destroyed to prevent technology from falling into foreign hands. Within 40 minutes of landing, the SEAL team successfully completed the operation and returned to Afghanistan. (Caravan) Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Hunt for Osama bin Laden Legal Considerations Under U.S. Law: In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) in 2001. This legislation empowered the President to employ “necessary and appropriate force” against entities responsible for the attacks. The Obama administration cited the AUMF as a legal basis for the operation against bin Laden. John Bellinger III, former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department asserted that the operation was a legitimate military action, stating that the assassination prohibition does not apply to killings in self-defence or during armed conflict. Under International Law: The incursion into Pakistani territory without prior consent sparked debates about sovereignty violations. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillian, emphasized the nation’s disapproval of such unilateral actions, highlighting concerns over sovereignty and adherence to international law. Conversely, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the operation as an act of national self-defence, aligning it with the U.S.’s inherent right to protect itself under international law. (Wikipedia) Scholars have also scrutinized the operation’s legality under international humanitarian law. Some argue that the absence of an active armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaeda at the time challenges the justification of bin
The MoSPI’s 2022 publication “Guidance on Monitoring Framework on SDGs at the sub-national Level” inter alia includes the guidelines for the development of SDG-based National Indicator Framework (NIF) and State Indicator Framework (SIF), which facilitates localization and assists State Governments in the development and refinement of the sub-national level monitoring framework by providing comprehensive guidance. In consonance with the MOSPI’s NIF and SIF, NITI Aayog has released four reports titled ‘SDG India Index,’ covering indices for 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2023-24 based on the globally accepted Sustainable Development Solution Network (SSDN) methodology. These reports illustrate the challenges respective States/UTs face in monitoring SDGs at the sub-national level, along with the best practices being followed in the States/UTs for SDG monitoring. This mechanism of monitoring through indigenized dashboards has facilitated Evidence-Based Policy Making (EBPM) in Indian policy circles. These tools evaluate the performance of the states and union territories aligned with the NIF, providing both goal-wise scores, ranking, and a composite score (0-100) that reflects overall progress collated from the raw data. (PIB, 2024). Thus, the following article undertakes four case studies (i.e., Delhi, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal) to assess and delineate the attempts of SDG localization on the ground.
Cross-border terrorism poses a severe threat to India’s national security, affecting its sovereignty, economy, and social stability. The evolving nature of terrorism, from infiltration to hybrid warfare and cyberattacks, has made counterterrorism efforts more complex. India faces challenges from Pakistan-backed groups, insurgencies in the Northeast, and emerging threats like drone warfare. While diplomatic measures and international cooperation are crucial, addressing root causes such as ideological radicalization and socio-economic disparities is essential. A comprehensive approach integrating technology, security reforms, and global alliances is necessary to safeguard India’s democratic values and ensure long-term peace and stability.
1. Deepika, CLC, University of Delhi 2. Ajit Kumar, Faculty of Law, BHU 3.Pranjal Sahay, Bharti vidyapeeth university AI at a point can make human pointless as due to its usage people have stopped physical and neurological usage of their body. The physical activities of human will decrease which will impact the health of humans. Also , due to easy access of solution to problems at a certain period of time it might be possible that human will completely depend on AI and will stop using personal intelligence which will harm their neurological system. People will reduce their human interaction as AI will provide them with their emotional intelligence. It will not only harm in physical and emotional sense but also in financial sense. AI is way more efficient and efficient than human. Software like amto.ai has been developed to draft the file of a particular case in very less time against human who takes times for the procedure of drafting and there are more software present and are yet to come. Company will rely on AI for its fast working capacity which will eventually reduce the job opportunities for humans. AI has the power to create artificial environment. It can create a virtual ecosystem but this may hamper the actual natural environment. There are chances that due to AI at a certain point artificial natural resources will introduced for the survival but it will definitely impact the natural ecosystem which can be threat to living beings. Another aspect which should made forward is the infringement of privacy by AI. AI is present everywhere in the cyber world today. Be it any website or application AI collects individuals personal information which can affect the privacy. This sensitive information can be used against an individual and may create threat in personal as well as in professional life. Students use resumes generated through AI for which they have to agree certain terms and conditions which are usually overlooked. Also, while making transaction through online banking terms and conditions appears but is not taken into account. This definitely can lead to threaten to privacy of individuals. There might be possibility that these personal information can get into wrong hands which can create cyber problems like online threatening, obscenity, frauds, etc . In order to resolve the problems certain legislations has been to take control on AI. Data Privacy Law At Global Level:- Due to advancement in technology such as the advent of the AI, internet, mobile, devices and social media platforms, misuse of personal data is increasing day by day. So, the question is: how can we solve it ? To solve the problem, countries at the global level have taken some important steps, such as The European Union (EU) has passed the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018 and the USA has adopted a sectoral approach to privacy regulation and other countries such as Canada and Nigeria, have also taken steps.All these step will be discuss in following manner:- Steps taken by European Union (EU):- EU has passed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. The European Union (EU) stands at the forefront of global privacy protection with the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018 (Cortez, 2020). The GDPR introduces a set of fundamental principles to govern the processing of personal data (Tamburri, 2020). It is enacted to regulate personal data and unify the data protection law across the europe. It is not bound by the territory, the GDPR applies to all the organizations. Crucially, the regulation establishes a robust framework for cross-border data transfers, promoting a unified approach to international data flows (Jiang, 2022. Okunade et al., 2023). This act contained some principles such as:- a) Fairness b) purpose limitation © Data minimization (d) Accuracy (e)Integrity and confidentiality etc. Further this act also provide some rights to the individual such as:- Right to Access Right to be forgotten Right ot be rectification Right to object Right to data portability Right to restriction of processing. In this act there is also provision regarding appointment of the Data Protection officer. The officer is required to be appointed by some organization. The main duty of the officer is to oversee the misuse of the data protection activity. In this act there is also provision of the penalties for non- compliance. Organizations can face penalties up to €20 million or 4% of their global annual turnover, whichever is higher. Steps Taken by the USA:- Unlike the EU, the United States follows a sectoral approach to privacy regulation, with laws addressing specific industries and types of data (Hartzog and Richards, 2020). Means there is no single data protection law like GDPR. The USA has adopted a sectoral approach to regulate privacy data in its country. In the usa there are lots of privacy laws such as: California consumer privacy act, provides rights to the residents of the california regarding the collection and use of their personal data.Consumer has right to know what data is being collected and for which purpose it will be used. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- it deals with healthcare data. It applies for healthcare data and healthcare plans that deal with protected health information. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA):-it applies to operators of websites and service providers who knowingly collect the data from children under the age of 13 years old. Before collecting the data from the children under the age of 13 years old you have to take permission from its parents. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA):- it applies in financial institutions and financial institutions require establishing the privacy policy regarding the financial information of the individuals. Steps Taken by the Canada:- in Canada, data privacy is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).it is a federal law which sets some rules for how private organizations can collect, use and disclose personal information in the course of commercial activity. Further it also