The uniform civil code (UCC) as an agenda for legislation has surfaced again in the national discourse. The underlying idea driving this agenda is premised on the cause of gender equality, an important issue of concern that needs attention. India is not a homogenous society with everyone speaking the same language and practising the same religion, traditions and customs, as is the case of many European countries. Rather, the opposite is true, leading to differences among its people concerning their personal life. The uniform civil code in personal laws can be seen essential or not by stressing on the issues underlined among the nation of cultural diversity and beliefs. There are many states which may implement UCC but it is very difficult to implement it nationwide due to personal clashes in religion, inequality and diversification of thoughts and beliefs. Before the independence till the current era, there have been many improvements and amendments that have been seen in UCC agenda but still the drive to achieve this agenda is going on. In this research paper, the researcher has discussed the evolution of the UCC, its implications, issues and solutions that had been affecting the nation. Through doctrinal research, an analysis of existing policies and suggestions for implementing UCC in respective states has been proposed.
The self-determination in modern International law has attained its importance especially after the World War II. At that time, several countries such as India, Pakistan, Israel, etc., got their independence through the decolonization process across the world, to protect their self-determination right. Several International law documents emphasizes the importance of state sovereign and self-determination of states including United Nations Charter. By upholding the above mentioned principle, a state is free from inference from other states in determining their own status. But, consider a religious state which has their religious and cultural shade even in their government and administrative blocks. Then minorities in that nation, who may be indigenous people as well, who follow different religions may face discrimination even by that State itself. Though several documents like ICCPR protect the self-determination rights of such people, still those minorities' rights were derogated at several instances. And at the worst case, their basic Human rights itself got violated. Here arises the question of protection and standard of life of minority groups who follow different religious, cultural or ethnical practices other than the majority practice of that state. This article deals about the minority rights of self-determination (internal self-determination), derogation of Human Rights of those minorities and status of International law and International community in handling these issues relating to the rights and protection of minority groups.
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital banking has transformed the detection and prevention of financial fraud. Machine-learning algorithms, behavioural analytics, biometric authentication and automated transaction-monitoring systems enable financial institutions to identify suspicious activities at a scale that conventional rule-based systems may not achieve. However, the same technological developments have created new legal challenges, including algorithmic opacity, discriminatory outcomes, privacy risks, false-positive transaction blocking, and uncertainty concerning responsibility for AI-assisted decisions. Simultaneously, cybercriminals increasingly exploit AI to facilitate impersonation, phishing, synthetic identities and fraudulent payment instructions. This paper examines the legal and regulatory implications of AI-based cyber-fraud prevention in digital banking, with particular reference to India, the United Kingdom and the United States. It adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology to analyse relevant cybercrime legislation, data-protection requirements, financial-sector regulation and institutional accountability. The paper argues that effective AI-based fraud prevention requires more than technological accuracy: financial institutions must also demonstrate lawful data processing, proportionate monitoring, appropriate human oversight, explainable decisions and accessible consumer remedies. It proposes a governance-oriented approach in which the deployment of AI is accompanied by documented risk assessments, independent validation, continuous monitoring and clear responsibility for adverse outcomes.
Artificial intelligence has spread into almost every data-heavy sector in India, from banking to healthcare to public service delivery, and this has quietly changed what a data breach even looks like. India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was finally brought to life by the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 13 November 2025, giving the country its first working data protection regime. But the Act was written without any real attention to how AI systems fail: model inversion, membership inference, training data memorised and later regurgitated by a chatbot, none of these appear anywhere in the statute. This paper looks at whether the DPDP framework, as it now stands, is actually equipped to handle breaches that originate from AI systems rather than from a simple hacked database. To test this, the paper compares India's approach with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, the United States' sectoral and state-level model built around the California Consumer Privacy Act and its 2020 amendment the California Privacy Rights Act, and Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act. The comparison shows that the DPDP Act gets some genuinely useful things right, particularly its Consent Manager system and its heavy penalties, but it is thin on algorithmic transparency, does not require impact assessments for most AI deployments, gives no one a right to contest a purely automated decision, and leaves the breach notification deadline undefined. The paper ends with concrete suggestions for the Data Protection Board, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and future rule making, aimed at closing these gaps before the Act's phased rollout finishes in May 2027.
Background: Witness intimidation can alter investigations and trials. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of witness intimidation and how witness protection is legally and institutionally provided in the state of Chhattisgarh, in the context of access to justice. It adopts a combination of doctrinal and analytical approaches to examine the Constitution, the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, specially enacted provisions, the supreme court pronouncements, the vulnerable-witness guidelines of Chhattisgarh High Court, and the State's 2025 justice-capacity indicators. The protection laws provide for a variety of flexible and interim measures such as the assurance of confidentiality, testimony under the protection of the state, witness relocation and the protection of the witness's identity. Chhattisgarh has many institutional resources in the police system and legal aid infrastructure. Nonetheless, the lack of infrastructure around legal aid and the resources for legal services, coupled with judicial and forensic gaps, may result in unequal protection. The protection of witnesses in the justice system provides a cross-cutting integration of protections from the court, the police, the prosecution, and legal aid, in addition to protected and assisted filing, planned mitigation of regional security, and anonymous assessments of performance and legal testimony provided through technology in support of witness rights. Witness protection, in this context, measurable access to justice, would improve the reliability of witness testimony and ensure fairness in adversarial criminal proceedings.
Fatma Farheen, Dr. Taru Mishra, Dr. Rohit P. Shabran
“Open-source AI” is a commercial and regulatory term that is gaining in popularity, but AI systems don't fit the source-code model of traditional open source software. This paper explores copyleft, the Open Source Definition, the Open Source AI Definition 1.0 (OSAID), and some key examples of corporate licensing policies, through a doctrinal and comparative legal lens. It states that copyleft is compatible with open source AI where the shared freedom includes share-alike provisions that ensure downstream freedoms; however, it does not include reciprocal language that turns into user restrictions, field of use restrictions, competition restrictions or scale restrictions. The parallel comparison between the weights of Meta Llama 4, Phi from Microsoft, xAI Grok-1, and the licensing of OpenRAI makes it clear why open weights, permissively licensed components, and responsible-use licensing should not be considered open-source AI. Three tests are suggested: Completeness of the artefacts, Freedom of licence, Copyleft discipline. The paper concludes that legal labelling is crucial for research reproducability, procurement, compliance and the integrity of the open AI ecosystem.
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.