For decades, the law saw gender through a narrow lens — male or female, him or her, sir or madam. In this binary world, millions lived invisible lives, unnamed and unacknowledged. Their existence lingered in the margins of paperwork and public spaces alike. Then came NALSA v. Union of India (2014) — a judgment that did not just recognize a community but redefined what it means to be human in the eyes of the Constitution.

Justice, at its purest, is meant to illuminate truth. Yet, there are times when that very light casts shadows—where the innocent are condemned and the guilty walk free. Wrongful convictions are not just legal errors; they are psychological tragedies that scar individuals and corrode the moral fabric of society.

When we speak of justice in India, we often picture the courtroom — the arguments, the verdict, the gavel. Rarely do we imagine what follows: the slow decay of humanity behind the iron bars of a prison. Yet, justice does not end at conviction; it continues in the conditions of confinement. The idea of punishment in a constitutional democracy must harmonize with dignity, not diminish it.

In an age where every whisper becomes a headline and every trial a live broadcast, the courtroom of law often finds itself overshadowed by the court of media. The rise of “media trials” — where public opinion precedes judicial pronouncement — has deeply unsettled the foundations of fair justice. While the Constitution of India grants freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), this freedom was never intended to override the presumption of innocence and the rig

Custodial death—death of a person while under police or judicial custody—remains one of the most pressing human rights concerns in India. Despite constitutional guarantees and statutory safeguards, reports of custodial torture and fatalities continue to surface, raising serious questions about accountability, transparency, and justice. This article examines the current status of custodial deaths in India, the legal framework surrounding them, and the judicial response shaping

The tension between personality rights and freedom of speech represents one of the most significant challenges in constitutional and media law today. On one hand, freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is the bedrock of democracy, ensuring public debate, critique, and creative expression. On the other, personality rights, though not expressly codified, are recognized under Article 21 as part of the right to life, dignity, and privacy.