Indian Journal of Law and Human Behavior

Abstract An accusation which is often associated with Kaliyuga (the Fourth age of mankind) is that ‘it is marred by the obscurity of truth and ubiquity of untruth.’ This attribute has variety of convenient and nuanced nomenclatures viz. propaganda, alternative fact, post-truth, orthogonality, fake-news, kayfabe and et cetera. Such assortment of mind-feeds, within the Fourth age, being solely vehicled upon the existing Fourth Estate is akin to a crime unaccounted as of yet. With the advent of digitised editorial capabilities and its extent to curry tremendous monetary riches, -‘a lie travels several times faster than the truth’. This can be identified as a nascent criminality seated within the regime of Fourth Estate vide ‘social media’; fuelled by the thirst of attention deficiency and hyperactivity, it has metastasized communication and news into novel crime "de die in diem". The mechanics behind this problem centres around the corrupt economics of ‘ad-revenue’; for instance, to sell an advert. - the entire gamut of social media and Fourth Estate are in a perpetual race, which is - “who can cater a more sensational or creative lie”. The difference between facts and opinion are being blurred by tool of algorithmic bias or cognitive conditioning. This paper attempts to highlight these new world crime/offences alive among us with horrendous impunity. Solutions to it by human and institutional experiences are explicated in detail using empirical analysis of media consumption data . The virtues of Fourth Estate is under an existential threat vide legitimised means of corruption - for want of imposed ethical norms. Unless understood in human terms, this problem is certain to cause permanent damages to the quintessential characteristics of mankind, such as – the demise of satya in Kaliyuga which is a ‘Shaashwat Adharma’ (perpetuated crime of highest order) with no remedial recourse also called as satyanaash (eternal damnation).

Background Medical negligence cases often expose physicians to both civil and criminal liability, despite their lawful duty to care. The Indian Penal Code (IPC),1 codifies principles of common law and natural justice through statutory exceptions that can shield physicians from culpability. Sections 76, 80, 81, and 88 IPC provide distinct but complementary defenses based on mistake of fact, accident, necessity, and consent. These provisions, when integrated, form a comprehensive medico legal defense framework. Methods A doctrinal analysis of IPC Sections 76, 80, 81, and 88 was undertaken to identify their underlying legal principles, maxims, and statutory explanations. Each provision was examined in parallel with medical contexts—such as surgical errors, accidental injuries, emergency interventions, and consent based procedures—to establish applicability in medico legal defense in civil litigation. The framework was then consolidated to provide physicians with a unified pleading structure. Results • Section 76 IPC: Protects physicians from liability when harm arises from bona fide mistakes of fact (e.g., anatomical misidentification). • Section 80 IPC: Shields against accidental harm occurring despite lawful conduct and due care (e.g., inadvertent colon injury). • Section 81 IPC: Justifies acts done in good faith to prevent greater harm (e.g., amputation of gangrenous limb, emergency angioplasty). • Section 88 IPC: Provides comprehensive protection for lawful medical acts performed with valid consent in good faith, even if harm results. Together, these provisions establish a statutory shield that reframes adverse outcomes as excusable under codified principles of mistake, accident, necessity, and consent. Conclusion The consolidated medico legal defense framework integrating Sections 76, 80, 81, and 88 IPC offers physicians a robust statutory basis to defend against both criminal culpability and civil liability in medical negligence claims. By documenting competence, lawful authority, valid consent, and good faith, physicians can invoke these provisions to demonstrate that adverse outcomes were excusable under law. This framework strengthens medico legal advocacy and ensures protection for physicians acting within their professional duty.

Abstract The medical and legal professions, symbolized respectively by the white coat and the black coat, represent two of the most respected and socially significant vocations. While their primary objectives differ - healing in medicine and justice in law - both professions are grounded in ethical responsibility, public trust, and professional accountability. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of these professions, examining their ethical frameworks, standards of care, decision-making processes, and mechanisms of liability. It further explores the medico-legal interface through landmark judicial pronouncements, particularly in the domain of medical negligence and professional misconduct. The study highlights both convergence and divergence between these professions and emphasizes the necessity for interdisciplinary awareness in an era of increasing litigation and patient rights consciousness.

Background. Healthcare settings are increasingly exposed to both medical negligence claims and incidents of workplace violence (WPV). Medical negligence cases often arise from perceived errors in diagnosis, treatment, patient care, or unrealistic expectations, leading to significant legal and financial repercussions for both individual practitioners and hospitals. Simultaneously, healthcare workers frequently experience physical and psychological violence, which impacts their well-being, job satisfaction, and reflects on their overall professional confidence. Despite efforts to improve the healthcare ecosystem, such hospital conflicts are increasing day by day. Objectives. This review examines the gaps in the efforts being made to improve the systems and see how a material change can happen. Seeking a remedy in the Laws & Rules has proved ineffective. Efforts of the professional bodies have not helped. The review aims to make the hospital environment as free from litigation & violence as possible, so that the doctors & staff can focus on their primary job without any fear or stress Methods. Studies consistently show healthcare workers as victims of litigation and violence, underscoring the urgent need for effective mitigation strategies. Reactive solutions, as provided by medico-legal consultants, help, but there is a place for efforts to refine the systems and attitudes to ‘prevent’ hospital conflicts. The authors have used their extensive experience in the fields of medicine and law to plug the gaps. They propose the concept of Medico-legal coaches as a measure to bring a material change in the healthcare ecosystem, though this is not an established model reported in the literature. Discussion. The coach works before the performance, observes behaviour and systems, identifies weaknesses, develops habits, rehearses difficult situations, gives feedback, and helps the team perform reliably under pressure. Medico-legal coaching in hospitals is a specialized form of preventive professional guidance & support that trains doctors, nurses, and administrators on healthcare laws, clinical documentation, consent protocols, communication skills, and risk management to minimize medical negligence litigation & hospital violence. Medico-legal coaches are likely to empower doctors and hospitals to make their ecosystem safe from avoidable litigation and unwarranted violence. Medico-legal coaches are dedicated specialists with expertise in medicine and law. They are mandated to train the doctors & staff in ethical practices, communication skills, documentation, grievance redressal mechanisms, and other measures. They prepare risk stratification and mitigation strategies and try to improve the healthcare ecosystem to make it conducive for a healthy experience for both healthcare seekers and healthcare providers. Conclusion. Like coaches in sports and the surgical coaches for giving an extra edge for achieving extraordinary excellence in their fields, medicolegal coaches are likely to prove groundbreaking in substantially reducing the menace of hospital conflicts.

Abstract The intersection of reproductive autonomy, statutory legislative boundaries, and the professional conscience of medical practitioners presents a complex ethical and legal challenge in Indian jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized reproductive choice as a fundamental facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, the judicial compulsion to perform non-therapeutic terminations of pregnancy beyond the viability threshold creates a significant conflict with the ethical obligations of obstetricians. This article examines the tensions arising when judicial directives override established statutory limits under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971,1 arguing that compelling medical professionals to perform interventions that conflict with their ethical duty to care for a viable fetus—where no life-threatening emergency exists—undermines professional autonomy.2 We conclude that a balanced framework, which safeguards both maternal reproductive rights and the conscientious objection rights of healthcare providers, is essential to maintain the integrity of medical practice within the constitutional order.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape policing in Uttar Pradesh through crime analytics, predictive patrolling, facial recognition, natural-language search, AI-assisted reporting, case-tracking platforms and traffic-management systems. This paper examines these developments not merely as technological upgrades but as a form of digital governance in which police discretion is increasingly mediated by data, algorithms and privately developed platforms. Using a doctrinal and qualitative policy-analysis method, the study reviews the constitutional framework, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and Rules, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and Rules, relevant criminal procedure and evidence laws, official police circulars, practitioner accounts and international AI-governance standards. It evaluates the operational value of systems such as the Crime Analytics and Predictive Policing Portal, FAI, AI-enabled document management, EBITA, Trinetra 2.0, Crime GPT and YAKSH. The paper finds that these tools may improve information retrieval, supervision, resource allocation and response time, but their legitimacy depends on data quality, purpose limitation, proportionality, human review, auditability and effective remedies. India’s present legal framework remains fragmented and does not create a complete accountability structure for AI-assisted police decision-making. The paper therefore proposes a rights-respecting governance model based on prior impact assessment, classified risk levels, documented human oversight, independent audits, secure retention practices, vendor accountability and accessible grievance redressal. Such safeguards can support efficient policing without weakening constitutional liberty, equality or public trust.

Background: The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, was enacted as a non-compoundable statutory mechanism to safeguard minors from sexual abuse. However, Indian courts routinely confront cases where nonforcible sexual encounters between adolescent peers culminate in consensual marriage upon the victim attaining majority. Case Presentation: In Maruthupandi v. State (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 614), the appellant faced conviction under the POCSO Act. Following the judgment, upon reaching majority, the victim solemnized a lawful marriage with the appellant. The victim expressed a desire to terminate proceedings, and the appellant provided `10,00,000 as𿿿nancialsecurity. Intervention & Outcome: Recognizing that incarcerating the appellant would destroy a functional family unit, the Supreme Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence, while explicitly noting the order does not constitute a precedent. Conclusion: The ruling illustrates a pragmatic judicial approach balancing statutory compliance with social rehabilitation. It emphasizes that while Article 142 cannot routinely bypass mandatory criminal statutes, it serves as a crucial constitutional valve to prevent injustice in hyper-technical prosecutions.