Competition law has always presumed that cartels require a meeting of minds. Section 2(b) and Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 define an anti-competitive ‘agreement’ in terms broad enough to capture tacit understandings, but they still anchor liability to human coordination. Pricing algorithms deployed across e-commerce, travel, ride-hailing, and fuel retail in India now routinely converge on supra-competitive prices without any exchange of intent between rival firms. This paper maps four archetypes of algorithmic coordination messenger, hub-and-spoke, predictable-agent, and autonomous ‘digital eye’ collusion against the doctrinal architecture of the Competition Act, 2002, and asks whether the 2023 amendment’s codification of hub-and-spoke liability closes the gap or merely narrows it. Drawing on the Competition Commission of India’s treatment of the domestic airlines pricing-software matter, the Uber hub-and-spoke proceedings, comparative developments including Lithuania’s Eturas ruling, French and European regulatory proposals for algorithmic audits, and the empirical economics literature on reinforcement-learning collusion, the paper argues that the agreement paradigm cannot, without reform, reach autonomous algorithmic coordination. It proposes a structural-plus-effects framework for a new Section 3A, calibrated disclosure and audit obligations for high-risk pricing algorithms, a rebuttable presumption keyed to market structure and outcome, and safe harbours for verified compliance-by-design, alongside institutional coordination between the CCI and sectoral regulators.
The Roma, one of the Europe’s oldest minorities, has endured a long history of discrimination and disadvantage throughout Europe, which has only recently begun to be acknowledged and addressed. The Romani population occupies a peculiar stance and despite its distinct visible ethnicity, it has no political entity of its own. Moreover, being widely dispersed throughout Europe and beyond, the Roma have no territorial identity of their own. In today's world of interconnectedness and communication networks, new possibilities are arising that pose a challenge to identity construction processes as well as new risks and vulnerabilities. The transitional political efforts in the European Union for ensuring relief and inclusion of Roma population have been insignificant due to the lack of determination at the grassroots levels or because of the resistance of the majority population. The major challenges faced by these marginalized communities are the exclusion from basic environmental services, such as the supply of drinking water, sanitation, education, employment, healthcare, and infrastructure. Moreover, these communities are disproportionately affected by ecological hazards, such as pollution and environmental degradation stemming from waste dumps and landfills, contaminated sites, or dirty industries. The repercussions are devastating health impacts ranging from infectious diseases to mental health problems. Unequal exposure to environmental and segregated ghettos is one of many dimensions of anti-gypsyism, that is, the racially motivated discrimination and exclusion of persons stigmatized as ‘gypsies’ in public perceptions. Thereby, this research expounds upon the probable aspects to tackle the problems faced by Roma communities in and across Europe.
‘Bharat’, the ancient land has always attached great importance to knowledge. It’s a land which has a limitless array of texts, manuscripts and schools of knowledge. India's eternal wisdom resonates like a cosmic symphony. The reasoned, metaphysical and idealistic investigation of the system of knowledge stems from the Vedas traversing through the Upanishads, the Dharmashastras, Darsana and Nyaya. In the arena of scientific research where it is mainly curiosity that drives the search for knowledge, old academics of Bharat such as Aryabhata and Brahmagupta made important discoveries in mathematics and astronomy, while the Upanishads perceived & gathered a holistic vision of the cosmos. The vast tapestry of Sanskrit literary works, which span millennia, carries traces of a culture concerned with societal standards, fairness, and equality. Among these echoes from the past, one may hear soft but distinct voices of women's freedom. In this research, an attempt has been made to unravel through the chronicles of Sanskrit literature to decipher the origins of Feminist Jurisprudence in India. Feminist Jurisprudence is the study of many strands of feminist theory as well as the application of theory to situations that are of interest to members of the class. [1] The common notion is that, in India, feminist thought was cultivated from the 1850s and it was the colonials and only men who were the motivators & harbingers of the thought. This research seeks to disintegrate this fallacy. The research will investigate the history and long-term significance of the thought through ancient Sanskrit writings which encompass an extensive range of texts, from the Vedas, the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata), the Puranas, and Dharmashastras to the extensive corpus of classical Sanskrit literature. The research provides an articulation of feminist thought beginning from the Metaphysical concepts of ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Shakti’ to the Epics and navigates through the works of Kautilya to Kalidasa. The research aims to demonstrate the tremendous effects of the Sanskrit texts on modern debates over women's rights and legal standing. As modern India grapples with the issues of gender equality and justice, this wide array of literature carrying ancient wisdom could prove to be instrumental in shaping the legal landscape in modern India.
[1] Pranav Raina, “Feminist Jurisprudence: An Evolution from Fixed Mindset to A Growing Mindset” (2019) 5 AIJJS 32
Mob lynching has become a serious threat to India's democratic order, human rights commitments, and constitutional governance. Though equipped with a strong legal system, India has experienced a concerning escalation of mob justice crimes, especially against marginalised groups, most notably in the post-2015 era. This paper critically explores the root causes, socio-political consequences, and legal and enforcement failures driving mob lynching in modern India. Taking a doctrinal and case-law approach, this study attempts to fill a very important lacuna in the existing law literature. The paper examines whether India's existing legal provisions is covered by Section 103(2) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023(it specifically covers murder committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on specified grounds) and the Constitution are sufficient to dissuade and punish such actions effectively and the need for legal reforms to address the increasing digital incitement, hate-based violence, lynching cases, incorporating the use of digital platforms in instigating violence as a legally responsible element. It contends that mob lynching should be classified as a distinct offence, with tighter enforcement mechanisms, technological monitoring, and nationwide awareness campaigns to curb this crisis.
Elections in India are on the verge of becoming a legal formality rather than a democratic exercise. That is the claim this paper defends. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in the Lok Sabha on 17th December, 2024 and presently before a Joint Parliamentary Committee, is ordinarily discussed as a scheduling reform. It is nothing of the kind. It is a reordering of the temporal architecture of Indian democracy, and the cost of that reordering falls almost entirely on the States.
My central submission is that the Bill converts procedure into penalty. A State Legislative Assembly that has committed no wrong may nevertheless have its life cut short because the House of the People happens to be on a particular cycle. The instrument of that curtailment is an "Appointed Date" notified by the President under proposed Article 82A(1), an officer who, under Article 74(1) read with Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, acts on ministerial advice and exercises no independent judgment.
The critique is deliberately interdisciplinary. The Bill's defects are not confined to the constitutional plane on which the debate has largely been conducted. They are equally, and in some places more damagingly, defects of administrative law excessive delegation without the intelligible principle that In re Delhi Laws Act requires; the conferment of standardless discretion on the Election Commission to recommend deferral, contrary to K.T. Moopil Nair and State of Punjab v. Khan Chand; Wednesbury unreasonableness and disproportionality in the residual-term device, tested by Om Kumar v. Union of India and Modern Dental College; the violation of the electorate's legitimate expectation of a five-year mandate under Hindustan Development Corp.; the Colourable Exercise of Legislative Power tested by K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo; and the denial of natural justice, in the extended sense in which A.K. Kraipak and Maneka Gandhi have long applied it to institutional actors adversely affected. Presenting these two lines of critique together constitutional design and administrative discipline of power is the ambition of this paper.
Six arguments follow. The first concerns the source of the power to truncate an Assembly, and whether it survives once the ratification question under the proviso to Article 368(2) is answered. The second contends that the Election Commission's authority under Article 324 has always been derivative rather than plenary, and that the Bill compresses the constitutional space within which it works while simultaneously offloading onto it an administratively unstructured discretion. The third argues that the deferral provision fails both the Article 14 classification test and the Wednesbury/proportionality standard as absorbed into Indian administrative law. The fourth sets the "Unexpired Term" device against the Doctrine of Public Trust in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and against the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The fifth revisits the delegation and colourable-legislation problems that the Bill's architecture creates. The sixth tests the Government's fiscal and Model Code justifications against the record.
Each is then tested against the Government's own record: the Kovind Report, the Seventy-Ninth Report, the Law Commission's 2018 Draft Report, and the Election Commission's cost disclosures. That record does not sustain the case the Statement of Objects and Reasons makes for it.
This research paper deals with the reasons behind examination paper leaks in Indian education. Over the past 23 years, India has witnessed 45 paper leaks and related scams, with only 2 convictions, a process that took 14 years of trials. Of the cases: 1658 arrested, 925 accused appeared in chargesheet, 18 cases are still pending, 32 resulted in acquittal, and 43 accused remain in judicial custody. Many leaks were never registered and their accused never arrested, some evidences destroyed, some files were forgotten by the authorities. This paper examines how technology has contributed to the rise in paper leaks, why corruption occurs in higher education, and proposes various taxonomies of academic corruption: 1) Institutional vs Individual, 2) Corrupted functions, 3) Actors and beneficiaries, 4) Comprehensive taxonomy, 5) Pecuniary vs non-pecuniary. The findings include a comparative analysis of examination conducting method across China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, along with policy recommendations. The paper also discusses hunger strikes in India, the resignation of leaders both in India and internationally, questions of government accountability, the exam/re-exam controversy, appropriate use of technology, trends in the Indian government education budget, relevant case law, and the Jharkhand paper leak controversy.
Ask in natural language — hybrid semantic and full-text search surfaces related papers by topic, author, and legal research area.
Semantic search
Find conceptually related papers even when exact keywords do not match.
Hybrid ranking
Combines full-text and vector similarity for more relevant results.
Filter by topic
Narrow results by category, year, volume, and issue.
DOI-backed links
Persistent Crossref identifiers for every published article.
Journal Metrics
Impact at a glance
Publication statistics from our materialized journal metrics, refreshed on a regular cadence.
0
Published papers
0
Researchers
0
Downloads
0
Citations
Submission Workflow
From manuscript to publication
A transparent five-step process designed for authors, reviewers, and editorial teams.
01
Prepare Manuscript
Format your paper per JMDLR guidelines with abstract, keywords, and references.
02
Submit Paper
Upload your manuscript through our submission portal with author metadata.
03
Editorial Review
Editorial board screens for scope, originality, and scholarly rigor.
04
Peer Review
Double-blind peer review by domain experts with constructive feedback.
05
Publication
Accepted papers receive DOI assignment, indexing, and open-access release.
Benefits
Built for scholarly impact
Every published article ships with the metadata, identifiers, and discovery tools researchers expect.
Google Scholar metadata
Article pages expose full citation_* tags for academic discovery and indexing.
DOI-backed articles
Published articles carry persistent DOIs with Crossref-compatible bibliographic metadata.
ORCID on articles
Author profiles display ORCID iDs and affiliations on every published paper.
Repository exports
OAI-PMH, RSS, and Dublin Core metadata for harvesters and research databases.
Semantic search
Hybrid vector and full-text search across titles, abstracts, keywords, and authors.
Citation Ready
One-click APA, MLA, and BibTeX export for every published paper.
FAQ
Common questions
Everything you need to know about publishing, indexing, and discovering research on JMDLR.
JMDLR is the Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Legal Research, a peer-reviewed open-access law journal (E-ISSN 2582-9947) published by Nitisara Publication Company.
Research made easier to discover, read and cite.
Explore peer-reviewed legal scholarship with DOI-backed citations, AI-powered discovery, and a reading experience built for researchers.