Criminal Law:

I. Introduction: The Rights-Based Perspective Violence against women is not merely a social ill but a fundamental violation of human rights, contravening the rights to life, dignity, and equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.1 From an international law perspective, it violates the Convention on the Elimination of All […]

Analyzing police atrocities requires looking beyond mere “excess of power.” We must view it as a systemic failure of the State to uphold its “Social Contract” with citizens. The Indian police system, largely governed by the colonial Police Act of 1861, was designed to control subjects, not serve citizens.1 This archaic structure frequently clashes with

The Criminal Justice System (CJS) acts as the critical interface between state power and individual liberty. It is not merely a punitive apparatus but a protective shield designed to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is neither arbitrary nor oppressive. The protection of human rights within the CJS is anchored in the Constitution (the vision),

Analyzing the Principle of Non-Intervention requires us to navigate one of the deepest fault lines in international law: the tension between State Sovereignty and Human Rights.1 Traditionally, international law was “state-centric”—a club of sovereigns who agreed to leave each other alone.2 The principle of non-intervention was the “keep out” sign on the door of every

I. Introduction: The Clash of Sovereignty and Justice State jurisdiction is the power of a State under international law to govern persons and property by its municipal law. Traditionally, jurisdiction was a manifestation of absolute sovereignty—a State could do whatever it pleased within its borders. However, for the Human Rights scholar, jurisdiction is no longer

From Domestic Jurisdiction to International Concern I. Introduction: The Paradigm Shift Before 1945, international law was dominated by the Westphalian concept of State Sovereignty. How a state treated its own nationals was a matter of “domestic jurisdiction” (domaine réservé). The Charter of the United Nations (1945) fundamentally ruptured this tradition. For the human rights scholar,

1. Conceptual Distinction: Asylee vs. Refugee From an international law perspective, the distinction between an Asylee and a Refugee is largely procedural and jurisdictional rather than a difference in the core definition of the person. While Human Rights law (UDHR Art. 14) guarantees the right to seek asylum, there is no binding international obligation for

Extradition: Challenges, and Methods A Human Rights Perspective I. Introduction: The Jurisprudential Tension Extradition is the formal legal process by which one State (the requested State) surrenders a person to another State (the requesting State) for prosecution or punishment. The core tension in extradition law is between sovereignty/security (the State’s duty to combat transnational crime

International Customary Law: Jurisprudential Analysis and Significance I. Introduction: The Decentralized Legislative Process International Customary Law (CIL) represents the oldest and most original source of international law. Unlike domestic legal systems where legislation is centralized, CIL is a decentralized, bottom-up process of law-making.1 It is formally defined in Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the

the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) defines victims as: “Persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal