This paper examines the uncertain legal framework on non-compete clauses in Indian employment contracts. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares all restraints of trade void, with only narrow exceptions. Indian courts have developed a distinction between restraints during employment, which may be upheld, and restraints after employment, which are generally struck down. However, decisions such as Niranjan Golikari v Century Spinning and Superintendence v Krishan Murgai reveal inconsistencies over whether resignation or termination brings employment to an end. This ambiguity has left the scope for employers to use long fixed-term contracts or omit termination clauses to restrict employee mobility. The current framework does not differentiate between senior employees who may have greater bargaining power than employees at a junior level. Therefore, treating both of them equally may not be an equitable approach. The paper argues that the current approach is inadequate for a modern, knowledge-based economy where skilled employees and confidential information constitute core business assets. Comparative analysis of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and South Africa show that post-employment non competes are permitted in limited form, subject to conditions such as wage thresholds, duration caps, and tests of reasonableness. Drawing from these models, the paper proposes legislative reform in India. A statutory framework should set clear standards for enforceability, introduce salary-linked protections for employees with weaker bargaining power, limit the duration of non competes, and exclude the blue-pencil test. Such a design would balance employee freedom with the legitimate interests of employers.

This study explores the rise in private placement in public equity (hereinafter referred to as “PIPE”) deals in India from an Environmental, Social, and Governance (hereinafter referred to as “ESG”) perspective. PIPE has become an important route for raising capital in India’s listed companies, but its growth also raises an important question about the quality of capital being deployed. The study aims to ascertain whether private investment in public equity genuinely upholds ESG principles or simply evades stringent evaluation. Drawing on a doctrinal review of SEBI regulations and Indian statutes, and comparing them with global ESG criteria, as well as analysing recent instances of PIPEs, reveals a disjointed regulatory setting where compliance with the ESG framework is often considered optional, if not outright evasive, and thus undermines the spirit of strict adherence. The findings highlight that PIPE investments sidestep mandatory disclosure norms, lack standard procedures for assessing sustainability risk in due diligence, and, thereby, contractual warranties and voluntary reporting often fail to translate into sustained environmental or social outcomes, thereby paving the way for greenwashing and opacity at the investor level. The article suggests a detailed plan to address these challenges by requiring tailored ESG disclosures and independent verification for PIPE transactions, necessitating formal ESG due diligence by certified auditors, implementing continuous monitoring through digital reporting platforms, also aligning India’s ESG framework with global norms to attract responsible investment and uphold worldwide reputation. Given that these measures are adopted in phases and in build the-capacity mode, they will effectively serve as the mechanisms to convert PIPE deals into accountable channels for sustainable capital, thus moving India’s private markets a step closer to global standards. By integrating doctrinal legal analysis with practical policy design, the article contributes a pragmatic roadmap for regulators, investors, and market participants seeking to ensure that private equity backed public offerings foster measurable, long-term sustainability.

The recent nationwide caste census announcement by India’s ruling party marks a significant juncture in the country’s socio political discourse. This upcoming data collection, the first comprehensive enumeration in decades, has come up after fervent demands from opposition parties and activist groups, rallying behind the slogan “jitni abadi utna haq” (rights proportional to population) — a move some may argue is mere political mobilisation or a fixation on numbers. This article examines the permissibility, practicality and necessity of this contemporary demand, primarily through the lens of judicial precedents established by the Supreme Court of India. The focus narrows down to two pressing questions that have been central to the constitutional discourse on reservations: the foundational and often contentious (a) distinction between proportional representation and adequate representation and (b) the debate surrounding judicially imposed 50% reservation ceiling. Through a close analysis of landmark judgments rendered by the Apex Court, this research seeks to determine whether or not the call for proportional reservation truly aligns with, and more importantly, is even permissible under, India’s established constitutional principles. The article interrogates the judicial interpretations that have historically sought to balance the objective of compensatory discrimination with the fundamental right to equality. It further explores how updated empirical data from a census might reshape future policy action, particularly in light of the judiciary’s ongoing insistence on concrete evidence to bolster the effectiveness of affirmative action. Lastly, this article aims to assess the feasibility of achieving proportionality on a purely numerical basis, ultimately contributing to a wider discussion on whether the census can provide the data and the impetus for policies that address the root causes of inequality and lead to a genuine, measurable improvement in the lives of marginalised communities.

India’s Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “PROGA”) passed recently, shows a potential escalation in already congested corporate criminal enforcement, now extending to the gaming sector, as it explicitly expands liability for online gaming while criminalising previously regulatory breaches. The PROGA also imposes liabilities on finance facilitators, with a grey area between ‘in-app purchase’ and ‘money for gambling,’ and this widening of the statutory severity collides with India’s current structural enforcement crisis. Currently, white-collar crimes achieve a mere twenty-nine % conviction rate, with around ninety-four % case pendency; this reflects the drawback of overreliance on punitive prosecution without other mechanisms for ensuring self-accountability, restitution, or systemic compliance among corporations. We argue that PROGA’s stringent provisions will potentially exacerbate judicial congestion and be enforced with less efficiency, as online gaming is a fast-changing sector, and till the traditional method enforces its liability, a lot will have changed. Therefore, we argue that India can adopt Deferred Prosecution Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DPAs”) as a structured middle-path enforcement mechanism. We do the doctrinal analysis of PROGA’s liability provisions and comparative examination of DPA regimes in other regimes. We demonstrate that DPAs can simultaneously secure accountability while unlocking investigative and prosecutorial resources for cases requiring traditional criminal adjudication for individuals to mandatory judicial approval; we argue that with a tailored DPA for India, the transparency requirements and individual liability can both be balanced. We also attempt to legally analyse the potential challenges for implementing DPA in India and propose solutions accordingly. We propose a limited Indian DPA model bounded by non-negotiable safeguards, including factual admissions, restitution mandates, and compliance monitoring. This approach can allow online gaming sector entities to self report or accept negligence and pay damages.

As financial systems move beyond a conventional intermediary based model, platform driven infrastructures are redefining the manner in which securities are issued, traded and governed. Tokenisation platforms being the new big thing in this realm are ‘no longer considered a fragile new means that could easily be smothered in the cradle by overzealous enforcement of laws and regulations applicable to brick-and-mortar businesses.’ As these tokenised platforms continue to evolve and grow, India is witnessing the integration of this technology across different industries, specifically the securities markets. Tokenisation platforms displaced traditional intermediaries without displacing the functions they performed, thereby creating a fiduciary vacuum that erodes trust and exposes the market to vulnerabilities. Despite the growing discourse on digital assets and blockchain governance, existing scholarship frameworks and insufficiently regulatory examine the relocation of fiduciary accountability in tokenised securities markets, particularly within the Indian securities law regime. The current regulatory framework under the Securities and Exchange Board of India and its related frameworks remains largely entity centric and fails to adequately address this doctrinal lacuna. The paper adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology by analysing the existing Indian securities law, judicial precedents, and comparative approaches adopted in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the European Union. This paper examines the operational reality of tokenised platforms in securities markets and how they reconfigure market dynamics, highlighting the emerging risks due to the lack of any fiduciary responsibility. By characterising themselves as passive technology providers, these platforms try to absolve themselves of the gatekeeping functions they functionally perform. To address these gaps, the paper proposes a Functional Fiduciary Test, supplemented by baseline compliance requirements and a voluntary Issuer Fiduciary Note, to fit in this new technological regime within India’s securities market framework.

Unlike conventional works, ephemeral augmented reality (AR) art is always transient, location-dependent, and technologically dependent, usually without fixation and materiality traditionally deemed necessary for protection. This impermanence exposes substantial holes in current legal dogma, especially regarding authorship, ownership, and enforceability of rights in the layered and dematerialised domain of AR imposed upon physical environments. Based on legal reasoning and case studies of recent AR installations, the article illustrates how today’s copyright regimes are deficient in handling the dynamic, hybrid and ephemeral character of AR expression. Through comparative analysis, drawing on examples from jurisdictions such as the US, EU, Japan, China, and others, the article critically evaluates divergent ways in which laws attempt, and often fail to address the challenges posed by AR ephemerality and spatial specificity in the digital art ecosystem. It contends that to sufficiently accommodate innovation while protecting authors’ rights, copyright law needs to adapt to the circumstances of immersive and technologically dependent art practice. This article examines the legal and conceptual difficulties of augmented reality (AR) art in the context of copyright law and the way forward. It advocates for a balanced, forward-looking legal framework that supports both innovation and the protection of rights, facilitating the flourishing of AR art within India’s contemporary cultural landscape. The piece concludes with actionable proposals for doctrinal reform and inter-disciplinary debate to provide a more balanced and responsive legal framework for AR art which includes expanding definitions of fixation, developing registries for time-based and location-based digital works, and integrating multidisciplinary input from artists, technologists, and policymakers.