CALL FOR PAPERSVolume 2Issue 4Submit Research
PEER-REVIEWED • OPEN ACCESS • ESTABLISHED 2014

Advancing
Research Through
Open Knowledge

The Indian Journal of Contemporary Legal and Social Issues publishes rigorous, accessible scholarship at the intersection of law, society, technology, and governance.

Criminal Law
A Legal Tragedy Of Custodial Injustice: A Case An...
Angel Joseph
Criminal Law8 min
Criminal Law
Victim Or Witness? Protecting Child Witnesses In ...
Mr. Skand Gupta
Criminal Law8 min
Corporate Law
Platform Blocking And The Proportionality Deficit...
Naman Sharma
Corporate Law8 min
Civil Procedure/ADR
The Limits Of Indian Retrenchment Law In Addressi...
Mukund G Rajpal
Civil Procedure/ADR8 min
Constitutional Law
The Legality Of Forest Governance In Conflict-Aff...
Ms. Nisha Sharma
Constitutional Law8 min
Constitutional Law
Cross-Border Surrogacy And Childhood Statelessnes...
P Aiyapa Poonacha
Constitutional Law8 min
Civil Procedure/ADR
Analysing Discrepancies In The Admiralty Act, 201...
Arjun Raj Krishna
Civil Procedure/ADR8 min
LIVE RESEARCH • 106 PAPERS
WHY PUBLISH WITH IJCLSI

A publishing platform
built for serious scholarship.

01

Fast, Rigorous Review

Average first decision in 18 days. Every paper receives detailed, constructive feedback from leading scholars. Our process is transparent and respected for its fairness.

18 days
to first decision
02

Visibility Without Compromise

Papers are indexed in 15+ major databases. They are regularly cited in policy reports, court judgments, and leading international media. Reach that actually matters.

15+
academic databases
03

True Open Access

Immediate, permanent open access under CC-BY. Authors retain full copyright. No paywalls for readers. No APC barriers for authors from the Global South.

100%
open access
04

Real Metrics & Lasting Impact

Transparent download and citation data. Author dashboards. Institutional reports. We measure what actually advances careers and fields.

Real
impact data
FOR AUTHORS

Publishing at IJCLSI is clear, fair, and fast.

Your Submissions

Track review status in your author dashboard

Live preview

Digital Due Process and the Right to Explanation

Under Review
Submitted Jan 9, 2025Updated 2 days ago

Land Rights in the Era of Carbon Markets

Revision Requested
Submitted Nov 28, 2024Updated Jan 11

Judicial Review of Automated Welfare Systems

Accepted
Submitted Oct 14, 2024Updated Dec 19

Average first decision in 18 days

Research Areas

Browse scholarship by paper category across contemporary legal fields.

Constitutional Law
Fundamental rights, federalism, and judicial review
7 papers
Criminal Law
Evidence, sentencing, and criminal procedure
5 papers
Civil Procedure/ADR
ADR scholarship in the IJCLSI catalogue
3 papers
Corporate Law
Governance, insolvency, and securities regulation
3 papers
Cyber Law/Defamation
Defamation scholarship in the IJCLSI catalogue
1 papers
Family Law
Family Law scholarship in the IJCLSI catalogue
1 papers
International Law/Human Rights
Human Rights scholarship in the IJCLSI catalogue
1 papers
Private International Law
Private International Law scholarship in the IJCLSI catalogue
1 papers

Latest Publications

September 2026

View all →
Criminal Law

Victim Or Witness? Protecting Child Witnesses In Criminal Trials: A Critical Analysis Of Indian Law

Indian criminal law has gradually developed a strong framework for protecting children who are victims of crime, particularly through the POCSO Act, 2012, and the provisions now contained in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). However, children who witness a crime without being direct victims, remain ignored. This paper argues that the distinction between child victims and child witnesses has often been blurred in legal and policy discussions. As a result, child witnesses may still have to face repeated summons, aggressive cross-examination and the presence of the accused without protections specifically designed to address their needs. The paper traces the development of Indian law in this area and examines the contribution of the Law Commission of India, with particular attention to the 14th Report (1958), which addressed facilities for witnesses; the 154th Report (1996), which focused on building witness confidence and protecting witnesses from intimidation; and the 172nd Report (2000), which recommended measures such as recording the testimony of children through video links, providing a support person, and allowing judges to regulate the manner of cross-examination. Although these suggestions influenced safeguards for child victims of sexual offences, but that similar protections were not extended to child witnesses. To assess India’s position in this regard, the paper also undertakes a comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and South Africa. The United Kingdom’s Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, provides special measures for child witnesses without limiting them to categories of offences. South Africa, by contrast, has developed an intermediary system under Section 170A of the Criminal Procedure Act. While this mechanism was an important development, its use remains largely concentrated in sexual offence cases, reflecting a limitation that is also evident in the Indian framework. Drawing on these comparative experiences, the paper proposes a more consistent and inclusive approach to the examination of child witnesses in India. It argues for a uniform procedure that recognizes the vulnerabilities of children, as a witnesses, rather than making access to protective measures dependent on whether the child is classified as a victim or merely a witness.

Mr. Skand Gupta
8 min 4
Corporate Law

Platform Blocking And The Proportionality Deficit Section 69A After The Telegram Order

The judgment in Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India exposes a structural gap in the necessity stage of proportionality doctrine under Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. [1] This paper argues that the Delhi High Court collapsed two analytically distinct propositions: (1) that narrower measures were tried and failed, and (2) that no narrower measures were structurally available to the government. The court treated these as equivalent without accounting for the jurisdictional reality that Telegram, as an undomiciled foreign platform, could not structurally comply with targeted takedown orders. This distinction is decisive. [2] Foreign platforms without domestic presence in India have no corporate entity to serve, no assets to attach, and no representative to mandate compliance through. The necessity stage of proportionality doctrine cannot simply ignore this reality by asserting that the government exhausted all available tools. It must instead examine whether the regulatory architecture itself precludes certain measures. This paper proposes a statutory independent review body operating pre-enforcement to examine this distinction explicitly, supplemented by a graduated response ladder and bilateral treaty mechanisms with the jurisdictions where foreign platforms are domiciled. Without these reforms, Section 69A becomes a blunt instrument whenever foreign platforms are involved, and proportionality doctrine becomes a post-hoc ratification of executive action rather than a principled constraint upon it. [1] Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4750 (Delhi H.C. June 19, 2026), W.P. (C) No. 8259 of 2026. [2] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India , (2020) 3 SCC 637.

Naman Sharma
8 min 10
Civil Procedure/ADR

The Limits Of Indian Retrenchment Law In Addressing Large-Scale Employment Downsizing: A Critical Study Of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 And The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Indian retrenchment law developed around a specific paradigm: a firm terminates workers because it can no longer afford to employ them. This paper tests whether that paradigm remains adequate when economically viable enterprises undertake large-scale workforce reductions for reasons unconnected to financial distress, including organisational restructuring, automation and changing business models. Using doctrinal analysis of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which came into force on 21 November 2025, the paper examines the statutory definitions of retrenchment, lay-off and closure, the threshold-based permission regime, and the newly operative Worker Re-Skilling Fund under Section 83 of the Code. It uses Oracle Corporation's 2025 to 2026 restructuring, including its reported effect on the company's Indian workforce, as an illustrative case study of downsizing by a company that was not in financial distress. The paper compares the Indian position with the European Union's collective redundancy framework, United Kingdom consultation law and German co-determination practice. It finds that Indian retrenchment law regulates the legality and financial consequences of termination with reasonable rigour but contains no mechanism distinguishing distress-driven layoffs from discretionary restructuring, imposes no disclosure obligation tied to cause, and treats consultation as largely optional outside the collective bargaining context. The Worker Re-Skilling Fund represents a genuine, if modest, legislative acknowledgment of transition costs, but it is compensatory rather than preventive and untested in practice. The paper concludes that the working hypothesis is partially supported: Indian law provides real procedural and compensatory protection but remains structured around the fact of termination rather than the reasons behind large-scale downsizing, and it proposes a calibrated set of disclosure, redeployment-consideration and reporting reforms.

Mukund G Rajpal
8 min 7

Ready to publish work that matters?

Join thousands of researchers who have chosen IJCLSI for rigorous review, open access, and lasting impact.

Average first decision: 18 days