Author: Manish Kumar

Nani Palkhivala’s life offers a model for first-generation lawyers to succeed through knowledge and values, not privilege. Rising from modest beginnings, he mastered legal fundamentals, used constitutional law to empower, and honed language as his key advocacy tool. His integrity, clarity, relentless learning, and preparation set him apart. Palkhivala emphasized respecting institutions, using law for public good, and believing in its power for change. His journey shows that reputation is built through ethics, skill, and service—proving that a lasting legal legacy can be created without inherited networks.

Access to the internet is now essential for exercising basic rights like free speech, information, and participation in democracy. Courts and international bodies, including the UN and the European Court of Human Rights, have recognized this. India’s Supreme Court in Amar Jain v. Union of India (2025) affirmed digital access as part of the right to life. Blanket shutdowns and vague censorship laws threaten freedoms and must meet legal tests of necessity and legitimacy. A rights-based digital framework—ensuring net neutrality, fair access, and transparent governance—is vital to protect democracy in the digital age.

AI systems are reshaping society but challenge traditional criminal law, which relies on human intent and action. Globally, the EU uses risk-based rules; the U.S. applies existing laws with sentencing enhancements; the UK and Singapore adapt negligence and governance frameworks. Liability models range from holding humans responsible to strict liability for high-risk AI. India currently applies old criminal and IT laws, with courts emphasizing rights and oversight. Scholars propose negligence rules, strict liability, and mandatory insurance for AI harms. Policymakers are considering risk-based laws, sandboxes, standards, and human oversight to build a clear, future-ready AI liability framework.

India’s Constitution implies separation of powers and Article 50 urges separating the judiciary from the executive. The system uses judicial review, writs, Article 142, impeachment and appointments to maintain checks and balances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025), the Supreme Court set timelines for governors, rejected “pocket vetoes,” and used Article 142 to deem pending bills assented. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025 was withdrawn after protests over Bar Council autonomy. An ICJ report flagged appointment and transparency issues. Calls continue for clearer rules and reforms to balance judicial independence and accountability

The Income-Tax Bill, 2025, tabled in Lok Sabha on February 13, 2025, aims to replace the Income-Tax Act, 1961, modernizing tax administration without overhauling core structures. Effective April 1, 2026, it simplifies language, retains tax slabs and rates, and strengthens digital governance. Key features include faceless tax schemes, expanded definitions of undisclosed income to cover VDAs like crypto, and powers to access virtual digital spaces during searches. It refines dispute resolution panels and clarifies tax treaty interpretations. The bill balances tradition with technological innovation, ensuring clearer rules and tighter compliance in a digital economy.