GENDER, JUSTICE, AND JAIL: THE CASE FOR WOMEN’S LEGAL ADVOCACY
Written by Aboo Bakr student at Jamia Millia Islamia From the beginning of human civilisation to the modern era of unprecedented advancement, history bears witness to a grave truth: if there is one being whose dignity has been most violated, whose existence has been most trampled upon, and whose honour has been most ruthlessly exploited, it is none other than the woman. In this 21st century, where everyone talks about human rights, equality, and justice, women are still wrestling with entrenched discrimination and hardship on many fronts. Their rights are often shrugged aside, even with various laws and policies on the principle of justice across the globe, especially in regions where they should be the safest—the prison system, which was primarily designed for the incarceration of men. Women who already suffer from social chauvinism also face discrimination in prison, which is largely occupied by male staff and promotes an atmosphere for female inmates that fail to meet and address their physical, emotional, and social requirements. The gender-specific needs of prisoner women are often overlooked, primarily due to their numerical minority within the prison population. However, statistics also show a slow increase in women in prison and highlight a need to address the current panel framework. This blog examines the challenges faced by women prisoners, the lacunae in their legal protection, and the necessary reforms to address these issues. The Situation Of Women’s Prisons In India: Women incarcerated in Indian prisons are systematically deprived of their fundamental rights and basic amenities, including access to libraries, factory areas, open spaces, and recreational facilities that men can easily access, just because they are part of the male section of the prison. Although the total population of female prisoners remains a small percentage of the overall prison population, increased by 11.7% from 2014 to 2019, women made up 4.2% of the prison population. The report also highlights that 76% of all prisoners are undertrials, worsening the issue of prolonged incarceration without conviction that amounts to a clear violation of the right to speedy trial, as held in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980). Notably, only 18% of female prisoners get exclusive women’s prison facilities, as only 15 states and UTs have functional women’s prisons. The rest of the population lives in enclosures inside the prison facility. There is a lack of separate medical and psychiatric wards for female inmates. Distressingly, less than 40% of prisons provide sanitary napkins to female inmates, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. Women who are accompanied by their children are also deprived of nutritious food and proper education. Only prisons in Goa, Delhi, and Puducherry permit female prisoners to meet their children without being separated by bars or glass. It is concerning to note that 75% of prison wards for women must share common living spaces and kitchens with male offenders, increasing the risk to security. Judicial Pronouncement & Committee Reports On Women Prisoners’ Rights: The Prisons Act of 1894 or the corresponding State Prison Manuals govern the management and administration of prisons, which are solely the responsibility of state governments. The States bear the parens patriae responsibility to ensure the protection of prisoners’ rights and to amend the prison regulations to align with evolving human rights standards. The State’s duty extends to preventing and penalising violence against women, whether perpetrated by public officials or private actors, as part of its obligation to uphold the principles of natural justice and due process of law. The Indian judiciary has time and again ruled about appalling women’s conditions in prisons. The Same thing happened in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), wherein the Supreme Court of India dealt with the inhumane treatment of prisoners and emphasised their constitutional right of prisoners under Article 21. In Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Aid Society (1987) too, the Court laid down guidelines for safeguarding the fundamental rights of women prisoners. In its landmark judgement in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court of India unequivocally held that any kind of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is included in the concept of personal liberty as per Article 21 of the Constitution and thus a constitutional prohibition against custodial violence. The Model Prison Manual, draughted by the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), also underscores the need for gender-sensitive prison management. The Prison Act of 1894 contains provisions that apply to all convicts regardless of their sex because it makes no mention of female inmates in India. The Need For Gender – Specific Legal Rights: Recognising the plight condition of women in prison, states must adopt a proactive and reformative approach to ensure gender-sensitive prison policies. The measures outlined below, though not exhaustive, are sine qua non for upholding the fundamental rights of women prisoners. The Way Foreward: Across the world, including India, voices are raised against egregious and preposterous violations of human rights, particularly concerning women and children. Yet, there remains one marginalised group that is perpetually overlooked—those confined within the grim walls of prisons, about them our traditional and typical minds think only one thing: that they are not human beings, they do not have access to their basic amenities, they should be deprived of every facility, and they do not even deserve any basic rights. However, the law and justice system is not just for free citizens but for everyone who breathes, who feels, and who is alive. A society that turns a blind eye to the injustices within its prison system compromises the very essence of justice itself. Moreover, the Prisons Act, 1894, is outdated and needs repair. It contains no provision regarding the welfare and the betterment of the women prisoners. Recognising the urgent need for prison reforms, the Supreme Court in 2018 constituted a committee led by Justice Amitava Roy to examine prison conditions. However, the mere establishment of committees is not a panacea—similar efforts, such as those led by Justice A.N. Mulla and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1980s, failed to translate into tangible
UNFAIR WORKING AND WAGE CONDITIONS OF GIG WORKERS IN INDIA
Written by Piyush mani Tripathi student at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, SILIGURI Introduction– Do you know about the gig economy? Yes, it is a market system that mainly depends on temporary and part-time jobs instead of traditional full-time employment or the conventional employer-employee system. In simple terms, gig work is also known as freelancing job’s, which includes services such as food delivery and digital works. The gig market system has played a vital role in the growth of the economy and has introduced significant changes. Talking about India, over the past few years, the gig working culture has been booming. If you refer to NITI Aayog’s report titled “ India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy” you will see that before the COVID-19 pandemic, there were around 3 million gig workers in India, which increased to 7.7 million (77 lakh) in 2021. This number continues to rise.¹ The main reason behind the booming gig working culture in India is unemployment.Apart from unemployment, the gig system offers an easy hiring and easy firing process. In this system, if an employee is not working properly, it is easy to immediately remove them and, if required, the company can quickly appoint someone else. This creates convenience for both employers and employees. Additionally, in the gig working system, workers have the option to take up multiple jobs or do gig work as part-time employment for extra income. It also offers the flexibility to work from anywhere depending on the nature of the job, and the working hours are often flexible.But, as we know, every coin has two sides. The other side of gig working culture is very dark and disappointing. Unfair Working and Wage Conditions of Gig Workers- We can broadly divide gig workers into two main categories: Service-based gig workers include those who are unskilled or semi-skilled, commonly referred to as blue-collar workers. On the other hand, knowledge-based gig workers include individuals engaged in highly skilled and highly qualified jobs such as data scientists, AI trainers, consultants, etc., who are also known as white-collar workers. Since white-collar workers receive adequate income and have access to multiple opportunities—due to the high demand and low supply of highly skilled labour—their working conditions are relatively better. However, if we look at the condition of service-based gig workers, such as those involved in food delivery services and other delivery-related jobs, they face multiple difficulties, including very inhuman working schedules. Therefore, this research primarily focuses on the working conditions and wage-related issues of service-based, or blue-collar, gig workers. The problem associated with service based gig worker are large in numbers some of them are following- 1. Exhausting Working Conditions and Long Hours– Particularly those involved in delivery services like food delivery and app-based transportation, service- based gig workers sometimes deal with quite demanding working conditions. Usually riding for 8 to 11 hours a day these workers reach their daily targets. Many food delivery app have rules like “delivery within 30 minutes,” and the pressure to reach these targets mostly rests on the shoulders of the delivery personnel . This compels them to engage in over speeding and choose dangerous paths , which increasing the risk of accidents. A National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), analysis indicates that workers of app-based food delivery platform work approximately 69.3 hours per week. In contrast, if you see the Periodic Labour Force Survey suggests that the average working hours for a worker should be around 56 hours per week. Which clearly indicates that delivery workers are putting in nearly 23% more working hours than the standard, clearly reflecting the inhumane and exploitative nature of their working conditions.² 2. Financial Challenges and Income Fluctuation – According to a report by NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic Research), which is a prominent think tank, food delivery platform workers in India work an average of 69.3 hours per week—23% more than the average reported in the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS). This is not a single example ; there are large number of gig workers nationwide put in lengthy and taking workdays. Even though working much harder, their pay is very less. According to a report by Business Manager,³ the average monthly salary for a service-based gig worker is approximately ₹18,000, which is incredibly very less considering the amount of time and effort required. As most of the app based gig workers do not receive a fixed salary. Their earnings are usually depend upon completion of specific targets or tasks, which leads to significant income fluctuation. This lack of income stability is one of the major financial difficulties faced by gig workers. Overall, it is estimated that Approximately 75% of Indian gig workers face financial challenges.⁴ 3. Lack of Legal Protection and Gig Workers’ Rights- Because they do not fit into the traditional employee- employer framework, gig workers in India are still unprotected by traditional labour laws.Widespread discrimination, suchas wrongful termination as per the comfort and need of employer and denial of basic benefit like Health Insurance ,paid leave and retirement benefit this caused by not having proper legal Framework for gig workers. Although Section 2(35) of the Code on Social Security, 2020,⁵ introduced by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, defines a gig worker as “a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement and earns from such activities outside of the traditional employer-employee relationship.” While the Code mentions provisions for old-age protection, disability coverage, and accident insurance, but still it is not implemented adequately. However Few state have taken independent initiatives specifically Rajasthan government enacted “the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act” on July 24, 2023, and becoming the first state having legislation specifically for service based gig workers. However, taking stapes from the end of few states is not enough. there for acomprehensive, uniformly implemented national legal framework is essential to ensure fair working conditions, wages, and Rights for gig workers across the country. 4. Unionization and lack of Collective Bargaining in the Gig Economy- Unlike
Reimaging Data protection for the Marginalized: Why India’s Digital Policies Must Prioritize the Vulnerable First
Written by Setu Kumar Rai & Tanisha Nath students at National Law University, Meghalaya. Introduction India’s digital revolution has transformed commerce, education, governance, and social interaction at an unforeseen speed. From the introduction of Aadhar in 2009 to the large-scale adoption of 4G networks in the late 2010s, more than 820 million Indians now regularly use the internet from a mere 250 million in 2014 , yet this growth remains geographically, gender-wise, caste-wise, and income-wise unevenly distributed. While the urban hubs enjoy average broadband speeds of 50 Mbps, numerous rural districts still fight for 2 Mbps connections, with some panchayats reporting a complete lack of reliable service. This dichotomy fuels a digital divide that both constrains opportunity and makes marginalized populations increasingly vulnerable to data exploitation in the absence of proper safeguards, individual information like biometric data, financial transactions, health records can be gathered, abused, or weaponized by state and corporate actors. Across the world, regulations like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have increased the standards of individuals’ rights, requiring transparency, consent, and minimization of data. These, however, assume an architecture of digital literacy and agency as a given ,privileges that are simply not available to millions of Indians, particularly women, rural dwellers, and economically poor constituencies. As India is finishing its Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill, 2023, it is at a crossroads: mimic global standards or lead a “vulnerability-first” approach that centers the interests of the least empowered in its data governance. This blog pleads for the latter drawing out the digital divide in India, discussing the increased risks faced by marginalized groups, critiquing current legislations, and presenting tangible, inclusive policy reform suggestions. The Digital Divide in India India’s base of internet users grew from 400 million in 2017 to more than 820 million as of the end of 2023, yet penetration is persistently skewed. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s 2021 report estimated urban internet penetration at 72%, versus only 38% in the countryside. In Jharkhand and Bihar, rural connectivity had fallen as low as 24%, whereas Kerala and Punjab had more than 60% rural coverage. Such differences are rooted in the infrastructure deficit—only 42% of Indian villages were covered by 4G by 2022—and the affordability barrier, with rural users paying an average of ₹130 per month for data, compared to ₹250 in cities. Indian women are disproportionately impacted by the digital divide. Based on GSMA’s 2020 Mobile Gender Gap report, just 37% of Indian women use mobile internet—approximately 20 percentage points behind men. Socio-cultural values restrict women’s mobility and education, hindering both access to technology as well as digital literacy training. Smartphone ownership is still taboo for women in certain patriarchal rural communities, while safety issues and online harassment additionally deter women from joining online. Exclusion based on caste adds to these disparities. Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) have average internet adoption of 30% and 28%, respectively far less than the overall national average. Poorer households, which incur less than ₹150 a month on data, must make a choice between basic internet connectivity and irreducible necessities. Additionally, digital literacy programs frequently go to waste in marginalized hamlets since NGO and government outreach efforts target more accessible and denser areas. Vulnerability of Marginalized Groups in the Digital Ecosystem In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Yet the subsequent rollout of Aadhaar—a biometric database covering over 1.3 billion residents—underscored the perils of large-scale data collection without adequate safeguards. Although Aadhaar aimed to streamline welfare delivery, authentication failures disproportionately impacted rural residents. In Rajasthan, 15% of users experienced failed authentications due to worn fingerprints; in Tamil Nadu, women laborers with manual-skill-induced fingerprint erosion faced a 20% higher failure rate than men. When we speak, these failures have grave material effects, denial of rations, pension payments, and LPG subsidies, services essential for subsistence. Privacy International’s December 2021 report highlights that over 2 million individuals faced service exclusion in 2020 alone, primarily from marginalized castes and remote hamlets. Unable to navigate complex grievance-redress mechanisms or contest data inaccuracies, these citizens endure bureaucratic limbo. Beyond state surveillance, private platforms routinely harvest user data under opaque consent clauses. Economically disadvantaged users—unaware of the implications—click “agree” on lengthy, jargon-laden terms to access essential mobile banking or health apps. The result: granular behavioral profiles used for targeted marketing, micro-credit algorithms that penalize the poor, and risk assessments that reinforce existing socioeconomic biases. International human-rights organizations underscore that vulnerable groups worldwide suffer similar fates. Access Now’s 2023 report documents how indigenous communities in Latin America faced algorithmic profiling for resource allocation, while African informal workers were excluded from digital lending services due to biased credit scoring models. These global parallels reinforce the urgency for India to design data protection that explicitly shields its most vulnerable cohorts. Evaluation of India’s Digital Laws The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 The DPDP Bill, tabled in Parliament in August 2023, is India’s effort to legislate data protection principles. The main provisions are: These are GDPR principles closely adhered to, though there is still much to be done about marginalized users: Comparative International Frameworks These examples demonstrate that embedding equity provisions—accessible communication, mandatory impact assessments, dedicated oversight—yields more inclusive outcomes. Policy Proposals for Inclusive Digital Reform To make data protection meaningfully benefit India’s most marginalized, the following practical reforms are essential: Implementation: Collaborate with panchayats, self-help groups, and grassroots NGOs to provide customized workshops on data rights, consent mechanisms, and foundational cybersecurity. Metrics: Synchronize with NITI Aayog’s 2021 digital transformation strategy reaching 10 million rural beneficiaries per year. Design: Implement Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology in local languages, visual consent cards, and in-app audio descriptions. Spain’s Data Protection Authority pilot of elderly audio-visual consent resulted in a 40% increase in informed assent. Requirement: Modify the DPDP Bill to mandate VIAs for all large-scale data processing—especially national ID schemes, financial inclusion initiatives, and health-data projects.
THE EQUILIBRIUM OF ADR AND JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS IN THE CPC
Written by Ankush Saxena & Kushagra Nigam student at UPES, Dehradun The code of Civil Procedure, 1908. serves as a Cornerstone of India’s civil justice system, which strives to strike a delicate balance between two crucial objectives that is, the fostering growth of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for the amicable and speedy settlements on one hand, and preserving a strong procedural framework so as to ensure thorough and just adjudication of disputes within the formal Court of Justice on the other. This dual approach tells how well balanced the vision of aiming to reduce the burden on quotes is while safeguarding the right to justice through due process. In this article, the significant provisions of the CPC that promote ADR, like Section 89 and Order XXIII, are critically examined, followed by an examination of procedural steps to ensure a fair trial as well as mechanism ensuring finality of orders. Section 89 of the CPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 1999 to reduce the burden on courts by mandating judicial referral to ADR mechanisms in appropriate cases. It provides for resolution through arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalats). The objective is to ensure speedy and cost-effective dispute resolution, aligning with India’s policy of reducing litigation backlog. The following are a brief about the different modes of ADR for which the court may direct the parties: Judicial Interpretation of Section 89 The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. clarified that Section 89 must be read with flexibility to promote ADR and avoid procedural hurdles. Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that ADR mechanisms under Section 89 must be actively pursued by judges and litigants. Order XXIII of the CPC governs the withdrawal and compromise of suits, ensuring that disputes can be amicably settled at any stage of litigation. Rule 1 allows a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with permission to file afresh if there is sufficient cause. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 1 states a plaintiff may withdraw a suit at any stage without seeking permission from the court. However, in cases like these, they four feet the right to institute a fresh suit. Further, sub rule two of rule one States that if the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit and file a fresh one they must obtain the court’s permission which is only granted if the withdraw of the initial suit is due to formal defects or other reasonable grounds. This provision helps in safeguarding against frivolous litigation, While ensuring that the plaintiffs Are not unjustly penalised for the procedural shortcomings. Case Law on Order XXIII In Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, the Supreme Court held that once a lawful compromise is recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3, it operates as a final judgment and is enforceable like a decree. The promotion of ADR under CPC aligns with constitutional mandates such as Article 39A, which emphasizes access to justice. Further, ADR mechanisms reduce judicial backlog, lower litigation costs, and promote amicable resolution, fostering commercial and social harmony. The various provisions of the CPC establish procedural safeguards evidence rules including fair pleadings, impartial adjudication ensuring fairness and litigation, complying with the CPC’s main objectives. Principles of Natural Justice The CPC incorporates several procedural safeguards so as to ensure a fair trial routed in the principles of natural justice. These include audi alteram partem the right to be heard, and nemo judex in causa sua the rule against bias. To make sure that the justice is not hindered by the technicalities section 153-A of the CPC empowers courts to amend any defect or error in proceedings. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, The Supreme Court underscored that the procedural rules are intended to not to hinder but to advance the cause of justice. This principle was laid down in the Order VI Rule 17, Permitting the amendment of pleadings and to ensure that the true matters in the dispute are effectively resolved. Order V mandates proper service of summons, ensuring the defendant is informed and has the opportunity to contest the suit. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that the CPC aims to ensure a fair hearing and prevent ex-parte decrees in the absence of due service. Order XVIII governs the examination of witnesses, reinforcing procedural fairness. Cross-examination rights ensure that parties can challenge adverse evidence, a principle upheld in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India. The principle of audi alteram partem, embedded in Order IX Rule 7, guarantees a litigant’s right to present their case. Further, Order XLVII provides for review, enabling corrections in case of procedural or substantive errors. Ensures reliability of evidence through cross-examination. Provide options to challenge faulty judgments. Ensuring Impartiality and Transparency The CPC also ensures transparency and fairness through provisions such as Order XVIII, which requires witnesses to be examined in open court, and Order XIX, which governs the issuance of commissions for the witness examination. These provisions ensure that the trial process is conducted fairly and that parties have an opportunity to present their case effectively. In State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari (1976), the Supreme Court held that the examination of witnesses in open court is essential to maintain public confidence in the judicial process. This underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in ensuring a fair trial. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural safeguards in the CPC prevent miscarriage of justice. However, judicial delays often undermine these safeguards. Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission led to case flow management rules, introducing mandatory timelines for different litigation stages⁵. Finality of judgments is crucial for maintaining judicial efficiency. The CPC establishes mechanisms to prevent endless litigation and ensure certainty in legal outcomes. The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from re-litigating an issue that has been conclusively adjudicated. In Daryao v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that res judicata applies
Reimagining Welfare Delivery: Leveraging Digital Public Infrastructure for Inclusive Governance in India
Written by Akshat Jain student at Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru. Modern public policy reveals technology governance convergence as its dominant characteristic during the twenty-first century. India leads this transformation through its goal to establish Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), which serves as a model for the rest of the world. DPI serves as a program that has the potential to transform welfare delivery through its modernized public service accessibility approach. The inclusive application of DPI demands solutions to obstacles involving digital access, rights, and governance practices. What is Digital Public Infrastructure? These components are modular, open-source, and accessible to both the public and private sectors, making DPI a “public good”, with the condition that these must be managed responsibly. DPI and Welfare Delivery: A Game Changer The integration of DPI into welfare schemes has revolutionized how government benefits are distributed. The Aadhaar-powered Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanism eliminated delays and secured benefits such as LPG subsidies and rural employment wages from reaching beneficiaries without wastage. As of 2024, DBT has delivered ₹3.48 lakh crore worth of savings by stopping duplication as well as ghost beneficiaries, and corruption. Financial inclusion shows extraordinary expansion at present. The combination of Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) with UPI provides millions of people with their first chance to use formal financial services. The Economic Times reports how UPI handled 11 billion transactions on its own during a single month in 2024, while also showing growth in rural and semi-urban communities. The system promotes both convenience and empowerment for women, along with marginalized groups of people. Moreover, platforms like DigiLocker allow citizens to access government documents (such as PAN cards, driving licenses, and educational certificates) in a secure and verifiable manner. This reduces bureaucratic friction and enhances access to education, employment, and mobility. Constitutional Backing and the Right to Digital Access The Indian Constitution, while silent on technology per se, offers a powerful basis for digital equity through its guarantees of equality (Article 14) and life and personal liberty (Article 21). The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, recognized that digital access is intrinsic to Article 21. In the context of Aadhaar-based exclusion and KYC verification issues faced by disabled persons, the Court directed the government to ensure that all digital systems are accessible, inclusive, and non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the landmark K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right. This ruling reshaped the debate around Aadhaar and DPI, pushing the government to adopt stricter data protection measures, though gaps still remain in practice. Challenges to Inclusivity and Access Despite its transformative promise, DPI implementation is fraught with issues that, if unaddressed, risk reinforcing existing inequalities: 1. The Digital Divide India’s digital access remains uneven. The growth of smartphones and internet penetration occurs, yet rural areas maintain substantial deficiencies. Namely, the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) found in 2023 that 38% of rural Indians used the internet while 67% of urban Indians maintained regular internet access. Genital and age differences, coupled with illiteracy problems, combine to prevent millions of people from using digital services unassisted. 2. Exclusion by Design The 2024 report from Amnesty International demonstrates that entities operating PDS and MNREGA schemes have wrongly excluded eligible beneficiaries through automated resolution systems with both biological inconsistencies and technical issues, and inflexible automation protocols. The accountability of algorithms in public welfare delivery faces serious doubts because of their implementation. 3. Privacy and Data Protection The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 exists to reduce existing privacy risks regarding personal data. Numerous critics point out that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act contains wide governmental exceptions while lacking enough independent oversight functions. The Aadhaar database remains under scrutiny because its database faced security breaches along with problems in obtaining proper consent from users. 4. Public-Private Blurring The implementation of digital governance relies on private tech companies to build, operate, or manage sections of the DPI. DPI technical efficiency increases through digital governance, yet this enhancement creates problems because public infrastructure becomes private and oversight becomes restricted. Experts at The Wire argue that DPIs must prioritize citizen interests over corporate profits, especially when data and service access are involved. The Way Forward: Inclusive, Rights-Based DPI To ensure DPI serves the public good, especially the marginalized, India must adopt a human rights-centric approach to digital governance. 1. Bridge the Digital Divide 2. Enforce Data Privacy and Consent 3. Inclusive Design and Accessibility 4. Legal Accountability and Auditing 5. Federal Coordination Since many welfare schemes are co-administered by central and state governments, DPI must enable seamless interoperability while respecting local autonomy. The One Nation One Ration Card scheme is a good example, allowing interstate migrants to access food rations regardless of location, provided the system functions effectively. 6. Establishment of DPI Research Centre The Indian government intends to build a research and development hub known as the Centre of Excellence for Digital Public Infrastructure and Digital Public Goods. The center will support innovation through academic involvement and research body participation to create digital solutions which scale effectively and work with interconnectivity. The center will conduct DPI implementation operations within G20 nations together with Global South countries to spread India’s digital roadmaps worldwide. 7. UPI 3.0: Advancement in Digital Payments The latest 3.0 version of UPI now enables users to make payments through Conversational Voice Payments. The upgrade offers a voice command interface that allows users to proceed with transactions, making the system more accessible for people with low literacy or speakers of regional dialects. The AI-based voice recognition system incorporated into UPI 3.0 strives to establish digital payments that are friendly for all users. Global Recognition and Collaboration The Digital Public Infrastructure of India is attracting global attention across international circles. Through its partnership with the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) various countries within Africa combined with South America are adopting digital payment systems based on Unified Payments Interface (UPI). Peru and Namibia signed agreements with the Indian National
Threshold for Justice: Legal Analysis of Section 7 Proviso for Homebuyers
Written by Aanchal Ahuja student at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad Abstract This article delves into a comprehensive analysis of the threshold requirement introduced under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically concerning homebuyers. It requires that in order to start CIRP, at least 100 allottees or 10% of allottees in the same real estate project, whichever is smaller, must jointly submit an application. The article assesses the justification for this modification, which was proposed to limit pointless or speculative filings, and looks at its applications. It outlines the scope of its applicability to ongoing and new cases, its operation in single and multi-tower projects, and the administrative burden it imposes on allottees. The article also highlights procedural challenges such as determining the number of allottees in a project, collecting consent, and delays caused by compliance requirements. It identifies ambiguities in the interpretation and application of the provision and attempts to clarify them through judicial pronouncements. Keywords: IBC, 2016, Section 7, homebuyers, 2020 Amendment, threshold The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 describes two kinds of creditors. Section 5(7) defines a financial creditor as a person to whom a financial debt is owned and may include any person to whom such a debt has been transferred or assigned legally. Whereas, Section 5(20)defines an operational creditor as a person to whom an operational debt is owned or any such person to whom such debt has been legally transferred or assigned. The key word herein is legally, such transfer must not be illegally or for any unlawful purpose. There had been a perpetual ambiguity and confusion existing regarding the position of homebuyers in India under the Code. However, subsequent to the landmark judgment of Chita Sharma v. UOI , where the Hon’ble SC expressed apprehension in regard to the position of homebuyers. Following the judgment, an Insolvency Law Committee led by Injeti Srinivas was set up by the govt. which recognized the catastrophic consequences of the non-inclusion of home-buyers depriving them of their rights. The first major amendmentin 2018 was a turning point which explicitly gave the status of FCs to home-buyers and recognizing financial debts,Section 5(8) now included the money raised from allottees in the real-estate projects.Such allottees were also entitled to file an application under Section 7 to initiate CIRP against the corporate debtor. The landmark judgment of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. UOI upheld the constitutional validity of this amendment wherein it was clarified that home-buyers who are not allotted houses within the stipulated time-period will be treated as FCs. Furthermore, it was also observed that in real estate projects, money is collected from homebuyers in return for the promise of getting property in the future, which clearly reflects the time value of money. This credit collected from homebuyers falls under Section 5(8)(f), even without needing to refer to the explanation added later through the amendment. Furthermore, the 2020 amendment by virtue of Section 3 added Proviso 7, specifying the minimum threshold required for filing an application by home-buyers/ allottees. The petition initiating the CIRP against the builders can befiled only if it is done by at least 100 homebuyers/allottees from the same real estate project, or by at least 10% of the total number of homebuyers in that particular project, whichever is lesser. Further, Section 7(3)also requires that a financial creditor must bring on record the proof of default, either from an information utility or any other evidence, along with the name of the proposed interim professional. Non-compliance of either of these requirements leads to rejection of the application. As per Proviso 4 of Section 7, the information provided by IUs holds evidentiary value, and the AA is required to determine the existence of a financial debt default within 14 days of receipt of the application. In Manish Kumar v. UOI, the issue pertaining was that the classification made by the IBC by setting a threshold limit for home-buyers alone, levying no such condition for other Financial Creditors was unreasonable and violative of their rights. The 3 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble SC held that the position of home-buyers cannot be considered to be identical or compared with other financial creditors and the threshold limit set is not violative of Art. 14 or arbitrary. The 2020 amendment does not infringe upon the rights of the home-buyers to initiate CIRP, but only puts a minimum threshold limit for the same. A petition for initiation of the CIRP by home-buyers is maintainable subject to the minimum threshold limit as specified being met. A petition is rejected if the petitioners do not meet the requirements set up by the 2020 amendment. One of the most notable requirements is that all the allottees must be of the sameproject. In the judgement of Pankaj Mehta v. M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township, the Hon’ble NCLAT rejected the application since there were several individual projects and the allottees were spread over and associated with different projects, and hence the threshold limit was not met.The NCLT has expressed a similar view by rejecting the petitions not meeting the minimum requirement. In Mr. Rajesh Khanna & 82 Ors.v. M/s. Vardhman Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., the applicant claimed that the application out of 929 units in the project, the application was filed by 209 allottees. But the memo of parties displayed only 83 applicants, therefore the NCLT rejected the petition since it was unable to meet the limit set. The Hon’ble SC in the Manish Kumar Case (supra)held that the quoram of 100 or 10% of the allottees from the same project is to be seen as “on the date of presentation of the petition” rather than at the time of admission or hearing of the petition. The legitimacy of a petition must be assessed based on the facts that existed at the time it was filed. Furthermore, in Tarun Ahuja v. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., the NCLAT held that the withdrawal of certain allottees in pursuance of a settlement or any other reason would not
Beyond the App: Legal Protections for India’s Gig Workforce
Written by Himanshu Verma & Nishka Shah students at Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar INTRODUCTION As of 2025, there are over 12 million gig workers in India, working for companies such as Zomato, Swiggy, Uber, and Ola, primarily as delivery partners and drivers who are not in a typical employee-employer relationship with the companies. Many workers remain uncertain about their legal status, do they have rights like healthcare, sick leave, or minimum wages. Gig workers are people who work in the gig economy, an economy that is characterised by temporary jobs rather than permanent jobs. The individuals here earn income by performing part-time, flexible or rather freelance jobs usually through digital platforms. Employed on a temporary, contractual basis, they lack rights like minimum wages or paid sick leave. This blog will further delve into the labour laws and the rights to which the gig workers are entitled. UNDERSTANDING THE NUANCES OF THE GIG ECONOMY IN INDIA The rapid rise of digitalisation and widespread internet access has transformed the economic landscape worldwide and has determined the future of labour and employment by laying a solid foundation for the gig economy. The rise of start-ups and increasing consumer demand for quick services like food delivery has created many opportunities for gig workers in customer service roles. The “2021 World Employment and Social Outlook Report”, published by the International Labour Organisation,suggested that the number of digital labour platforms has increased fivefold over the past ten years. As E-commerce is expanding in India, it has become one of the biggest worldwide gig hubs according to the Economic Survey of 2020-2021. By the end of 2029-30, it is projected that the gig workforce in India will rise to 23.5 million including a mix of low, medium and high-skilled jobs, accounting for 6.7% of the non-agricultural workforce and 4.1% of the overall workforce according to the official report of “NITI Aayog (2022)”. The Gig Economy in India is divided into two categories: platform workers and non-platform workers. Platform workers usually provide services to those companies that use online algorithms in order to connect with their customers, such as Zomato, Swiggy, Amazon, etc., working as Delivery partners. Non-platform workers are those who are engaged in temporary or short-term employment, which does not use digital platforms such as daily wage labourers at construction sites. There are many advantages that the gig economy work offers, attracting individuals to such arrangements primarily due to its flexibility and independence. The workers have the right to choose their work schedules, take time off and choose employers based on personal preference, offering work-life balance. This not only helps freelancers to work on multiple projects at the same time and set their rates, but is also a very good platform for those who are seeking additional income. The temporary nature of work, lack of job security and income instability, limited legal protection and lack of social security benefits, etc., are concerning. Gig workers often face a problem of lower pay and long working hours with no paid sick leaves and insufficient safety measures at the workplace. The workers are being tied to an undefined job status, which leads to their exploitation. Moreover, workers who are Ambitious and have a willingness to learn and develop their skills are not provided with that opportunity. Concerns are raised about the labour laws due to the disruption of the traditional employer-employee arrangement caused by the expansion of the gig economy. Traditional employees, contractual workers, informal workers, etc., are usually governed by a set of laws that aim at protecting the rights of various workers working under this category. They get benefits like Minimum wages, paid sick leaves, Bonuses, Employee provident fund and pensions. Gig workers are often excluded from these protections. Important labour laws are created, such as “The Factories Act 1948”, to address the safety and welfare of the factory workers, “The Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923”, which offers compensation to employees or their families in case of any workplace accidents causing death or disability. Furthermore, “the Minimum Wages Act” and “the Trade Unions Act” are established for the benefit of the workers. But all these laws were created keeping traditional workers in mind; thus, the gig workers are not covered under these sections and are not entitled to any benefits under these. Due to a rise in the number of gig workers in the country and after filing many PILs, laws are now being created to Favour the gig workers, to benefit them and provide them with equal benefits. In the case of “Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT) v. Union of India”, IFAT filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the Supreme Court in September 2021, claiming that gig workers are not considered eligible for social security payments since they are considered independent contractors. The petitioner also claimed that gig workers employed by app-based platforms should be classified as ‘unorganised workers’ and, therefore, be entitled to social security benefits under existing labour laws. The Delhi High Court in the case of “App-based Transport Workers v. Government of NCT of Delhi” The court has instructed the government to grant social security benefits to the individuals working on gig jobs and discovered that gig workers are eligible for social security benefits such as health and disability insurance, and ordered the government to consider the possibility of implementing a social security scheme for gig workers. For the first time, gig workers were given legal legitimacy in “the Code on Social Security”, released in 2020.The legislation put the workers in a separate category and made it compulsory for them to register to qualify to receive social security benefits. Registration was prohibited by law for anyone below the age of 16 or above the age of 60 from joining. There have been a few state-level initiatives to enhance the well-being of gig workers, including “the Rajasthan Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Act, 2023”. It is the first state-level law in India that targets specifically the gig workers.
Reciprocity and Regulation: Analyzing the 2025 Amendments to BCI Rules on Foreign Legal Practice in India
Written by Jagatpal Choudhary, a student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Introduction The Bar Council of India [hereinafter “BCI”] has notified Amendment Rules for Registration and Regulations of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India [hereinafter “Rules”] (such power is conferred by Section 7(1)(d), (e), (ic), (l) and (m) and Section 49(1)(ah), (ag), (c), (e), and (h) read together with Section 24, 29, and 47 of the Advocates Act, 1961), allowing foreign lawyers and law firms [hereinafter “Foreign Lawyers and Firms”] to practice foreign law in India on a reciprocity basis, which means “Indian advocates and law firms may register as foreign lawyers or foreign law firms, allowing them to expand their practice to foreign law and international law consultancy without relinquishing their rights to practice Indian law in domestic forums. This dual registration provides Indian lawyers with an opportunity to broaden their professional horizons while maintaining their status as advocates under Indian law.” Objective of the Amendment Bought Here, answering succinctly to the above questions this, there is a dissenting judgment with the AK Balaji, regarding the expression “fly in and fly out”, it was put forth that it will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” and nothing else, and in case of any doubt, then the interpretation of BCI will have an upper hand as and when decided. Secondly, it was held that there is no absolute right of the foreign lawyer to conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration. Thirdly, the expression mentioned in the Para 63(iv) of the 2012 judgement, B.P.O. Companies providing wide range of customized and integrated services and functions to its customers like word processing, secretarial support, transcription services, proof reading services, travel desk support services, etc. do not come within the purview of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of India Rules. Definition Clause:- Scope and eligibility of Practice for Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms Registration and Regulatory Requirements Validity and Renewal of Registration The Nature of Restrictions and Ethical Obligations on Foreign Lawyers and Firms: Impact on Indian Legal Professionals and Law Firms Implications and Repercussions on the Indian Legal Practice System In conclusion, while the amendments offer substantial opportunities for growth, learning, and internationalization, they also demand vigilance from regulators and adaptability from practitioners. For Indian lawyers and law firms, the move prompts new pathways, competitive benchmarks, and partnership prospects.