National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) is a National Law University in India, offering courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Situated in Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi -110078, India, NLUD is one of the national law schools in India built on the five-year law degree model proposed and implemented by the Bar Council of India. The National Law University Act, 2007 provides for the Chief Justice of India to be the university's visitor, whereas the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to function as the university's chancellor. whereas its vice-chancellor functions as the chief administrator.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digitalization in India, leading to the widespread adoption of technology across various domains including education and legal services. The new norms of this digital education have transformed traditional learning methods, posing challenges for practical legal training in clinical legal education. University-based law clinics, which play a crucial role in training future lawyers and ensuring legal aid delivery, have struggled to adapt to online models while maintaining their client-centred approach. This shift from traditional practice to virtual mode provided an opportunity to improve access to justice and modernize legal education, yet it also exposed significant gaps in accessibility, implementation and effectiveness. While virtual legal education, online legal aid services and digital legal clinics were introduced to bridge the justice gap, many of these platforms remain underutilized, inefficient or inaccessible to marginalized communities. This article explores how the technological push accelerated by the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic can be leveraged to enhance virtual legal services, improve access to justice and create a more effective digital legal aid framework. It examines the current benefits and challenges of integrating technology into legal services. Finally, drawing from suitable global practices and successful initiatives in other domains, it recommends possible policy measures for its effective implementation.
Victim compensation contributes significantly to furnishing financial restitution and rehabilitation to individuals adversely affected by criminal acts. In the context of India, this principle has undergone significant development through legislative measures, notably Sections 395 and 396(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which were previously identified as Sections 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in conjunction with progressive judicial interpretations. This discussion examines the legal framework governing victim compensation, tracing its evolution from optional choices to firm state policies. It scrutinizes pivotal judicial trajectories through seminal rulings such as Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, Karan v. State NCT of Delhi and Saif Ali @ Sohan v. State of NCT of Delhi , emphasizing the transition towards obligatory compensation and the ensuing procedural complexities. The investigation questions whether stipulations such as mandatory financial disclosures by convicts and postponed sentencing, as per the Karan framework, represent judicial overreach and thereby contravene constitutional protections enshrined in Articles 20(3) and 21. Furthermore, this analysis provides a detailed narrative of compensation distribution across Indian states between 2014 and 2024, uncovering persistent inequalities and challenges. The article proposes a strategy that aligns victim-centred changes with equitable justice processes for the accused, putting forth policy suggestions aimed at creating uniform compensation guidelines, cutting down on delays and ensuring constitutional protections.
Frames provide a unique perspective to bolster the processual understanding of radicalisation. Reflecting upon the importance of critical discourse on radicalisation, the paper discusses the rhetorical frames utilised in the radical publications by Islamic Extremist groups including magazines such as Sawt Al-Hind and Dabiq, targeting Indian audiences. Aimed at deconstructing the larger trajectories of extremist frames in the Indian context, the paper argues that the same apply the motifs of fear of a common universal enemy; persecution mania; ideal; place; sacrifice; and, propaganda of the deed, to construct a rhetoric aimed at promoting their own brand of social justice which justifies and necessitates violence. The result of this analysis establishes that the rhetorical employment of these core elements in the form of motifs helps in establishing a collective identity. This collective identity then becomes the basis for the mobilisation of extremist groups and legitimises their actions in the eyes of sympathisers. The paper concludes that the counter-narratives utilised by the State need careful construction keeping in view the nuances of the rhetorical frame sought to be countered.
The global female prison population has risen sharply since 2000, largely due to punitive responses to poverty and drug-related offences. There are no robust global data on the number of pregnant or breastfeeding women in prison or women living with their children in carceral settings. These women and their children (or fetuses) face heightened risks to their health, safety, and dignity, particularly during the perinatal period. In line with international norms, country-level examples of reform indicate that the prioritisation of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment for pregnant and breastfeeding women, particularly for non-violent offences, and the implementation of gender-responsive, trauma-informed care are possible and should be implemented and resourced. Monitoring of prison standards and oversight by independent inspectorates and national preventive mechanisms are crucial to ensure compliance with human rights standards. Legislative and policy reforms show a growing commitment to decarcerating and protecting the rights of incarcerated pregnant and breastfeeding women and their children.
