Skip to main content

LBR Law College: Law College in Varanasi

Facebook Twitter Youtube
Apply Online
Menu

Category: Uncategorized

The United Nations at a Crossroads: Peace, Justice and the Failure of Collective Action

Establishment and objective of UN
The United Nations (UN) is the global international organisation of sovereign independent states and was established on 24 October 1945. The destruction caused by the Second World War compelled the people to establish an international organisation for keeping the world away from war or creating a war like situation in any part of the world and promote friendship and cooperation among all the nations. The UN, as its predecessor organisation League of Nations, was designed to save the future generations from the scourge of war by promoting International peace and security. I would like to illustrate that UN’s predecessor organization was founded with more or less similar objectives, as is of UN’s, in 1920 after the end of WW I with 44 signing members rising to the highest 58 members and by the time of its dissolution in year 1946 only 23 members remained. After the end of the WW II, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union (Former USSR) some other states held several meetings and planned to establish an organisation for preserving peace and promoting social, economic and political co-operation among all nations. As a result of their efforts, the United Nations came into existence in 1945 when the representatives of 51 nations signed the Charter of the UNO at San Francisco. President of US Franklin Roosevelt coded the word United Nations and as a tribute it was unanimously adopted as the name of this new organization. Interestingly, India had not achieved its freedom till then yet it became the founder member of United Nations. The UN charter came into force on 24th October 1945 and since then 24 October is celebrated as United Nations day.
Article 1 of the UN charter proposes the purpose of UN which are to maintain international peace and security and to take adequate steps to avert wars. To develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of equality. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic social cultural and humanitarian character and to be centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The principles of UN are given in Article 2 of UN charter and it is attributed that they are the means of to achieve the objectives of UN. They are
1. All the member states are equal.
2. The member states shall fulfill their obligations to the UN honestly.
3. The member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means.
4. The member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against any other state.
5. The member states shall give to the UN every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the UN Charter.
6. The states which are not members of the UN, should also act in accordance with these principles for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. No member state shall interfere in the internal affairs of any other state.
Among the principal organs of UN, the Security Council is one of the prominent one. The Security Council is the executive body of the UN. It is called “the Power House” of the UN. It is made up of 15 members out of whom 5 are permanent members, each with a veto power. These are the USA, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom. Remaining 10 are non-permanent members who are elected by the General Assembly by a 2/3 majority for a term of two years.
Existence of United Nations Under Strain: Case Studies from Ukraine, Gaza, and Global Security Challenges
The Russian -Ukraine conflict beginning on 24 February 2022 with series of preceding events from 2014 constitutes a clear violation of both the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and the principle of territorial integrity, triggering the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) in the conflict. All parties—including Russian and Ukrainian state forces, separatists, and other armed groups—must comply with the laws of war. These rules require humane treatment of all individuals not or no longer engaged in hostilities, such as civilians, detainees, and the wounded, and expressly prohibit violence, torture, and mistreatment. Third states also bear responsibility under international law and Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, meaning they must not recognize or assist the legality of Russia’s actions and should cooperate to end the aggression through lawful means.
The UN Security Council’s and the International Court of Justice’s emphasize that both Israel and Hamas (Militia group) must comply with international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), prohibiting attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and requiring humanitarian aid delivery. The ICJ specifically directed Israel, under the Genocide Convention , to ensure unhindered humanitarian assistance and avoid actions that could destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza; Hamas was urged to release hostages, though it is not bound by the Convention. IHL and IHRL apply equally during armed conflict, with non- derogable rights such as the right to life and health remaining fully in force. Occupying or controlling powers, like Israel in Gaza, have a positive duty to ensure civilians’ access to essential services, including health care, food, water, and electricity, regardless of security justifications. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Human Rights Council have affirmed that these obligations cannot be suspended, even in war. Israel’s effective control over Gaza—air, land, and sea access—means it is legally responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of its inhabitants. However, military actions such as bombing hospitals, destroying civilian infrastructure, and restricting basic supplies have severely damaged Gaza’s already fragile health system. The result is a surge in the number and severity of injuries and illnesses amid critical shortages of medical staff, supplies, and facilities. United Nations believes lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is possible only when people’s basic economic, social, and cultural rights are properly protected and fulfilled. Respect for these rights is essential to ensure dignity, stability, and long-term harmony in the region.

The Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict
The Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict offers a sobering lesson for the international community. The United Nations helped establish the legal framework for peace, repeatedly called for ceasefires and negotiations, and raised humanitarian concerns. Yet, it could not prevent decades of unresolved hostility, the recurrence of war or the mass displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population. The UNO’s failure was not that it never spoke. It was that its words were not matched by sufficient collective action to secure a lasting political settlement.
Azerbaijan achieved its principal territorial objective. Armenia suffered a strategic defeat. But the ultimate measure of success cannot be the map alone. It must be whether people can live without fear, whether displaced families receive justice, whether rights are protected and whether future generations are spared the inheritance of hatred.
The international community must recognise that peace is not merely the absence of fighting; it is the presence of justice, security and trust. The enduring question for the UN is whether it can move beyond recording violations and issuing resolutions towards preventing the next war. That is the real lesson of Armenia and Azerbaijan: a war may end when one side wins, but a lasting peace begins only when both societies have a reason to preserve it.
Houthis and the UN
The Houthis, formally known as Ansar Allah, meaning “Supporters of God,” are a Yemeni political and armed movement rooted in the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam. Their origins lie in northern Yemen, particularly the Saada region, where Zaydi religious and cultural traditions have historically been influential.
Houthis Attack Ships in the Red Sea because it is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. Through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, it connects the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea and the Suez Canal route towards Europe. Disruption in this corridor can affect international trade, shipping costs, insurance premiums and the delivery of essential commodities. Beginning in late 2023, the Houthis launched attacks against commercial and merchant vessels in the Red Sea and surrounding waters. The movement presented these operations as a response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and claimed that its actions were intended to support the Palestinians. However, the stated political justification does not automatically establish the legality of attacking particular vessels. Merchant ships and their civilian crews cannot lawfully be treated as legitimate targets merely because of their nationality, commercial connections or presumed political associations. The legality of any particular attack depends on the applicable rules of international law, including the law of armed conflict where applicable. The attacks created risks for seafarers, disrupted commercial routes and prompted military responses by several states. They also transformed a conflict rooted in Yemen into a wider international security problem.
The United Nations Security Council has not remained entirely inactive. It has adopted resolutions condemning the attacks, demanding their cessation and addressing related concerns. These measures demonstrate that the Security Council has recognised the threat to international maritime security and has employed its diplomatic and institutional authority. Under Article 39, the Security Council may determine that a situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security and decide what measures are appropriate. It may demand that parties cease attacks, respect applicable obligations and cooperate with efforts to restore peace. Yet a resolution demanding that an armed group stop attacking ships does not, by itself, intercept a missile, disable a drone or physically prevent a launch. The practical effectiveness of a resolution depends on the measures attached to it, the willingness of states to implement those measures and the ability to influence the group concerned.
The main obstacles posing in front of UN to stop Houthis from attacks are institutional, political and operational. Firstly, the Houthis are a non-state armed movement with territorial control and military capabilities. They are not an ordinary government that can necessarily be compelled to comply through conventional diplomatic pressure. Secondly, the United Nations depends on member states to implement its decisions. Effective action requires cooperation in enforcing arms restrictions, monitoring financial networks, protecting shipping and conducting any properly authorised military operation. Thirdly, the Security Council is affected by the competing interests of its five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Under Article 27 of the Charter, a negative vote by a permanent member on a substantive resolution can prevent its adoption. Fourthly, military enforcement presents risks of escalation. Strikes against Houthi positions may damage military capabilities, but they may also cause civilian harm, provoke retaliation or widen the conflict. A strategy directed at protecting shipping must therefore be assessed not only for its immediate military effect but also for its legality, proportionality where applicable and consequences for regional peace. And finally, even substantial military pressure may not resolve the political and social conditions underlying Yemen’s conflict. Long-term security requires more than suppressing individual attacks; it also requires a credible political settlement and protection of the civilian population.
Security Council resolution condemning Houthi attacks does not, by itself, authorise every subsequent military response. Nor does a state’s assertion of self-defence automatically settle the legality of its actions. The underlying principle is that the international legal system must address both the original attacks and the legality of the response to them.
The General Assembly has become a forum of debate, but not of decisions
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), one of the five core bodies of UN was established in 1945 as the representative organ of the international community, embodies the ideals of sovereign equality, international cooperation and world peace. Yet, in the face of mounting global crises, its effectiveness is increasingly being questioned. Despite annual debates, numerous resolutions and ambitious declarations, the General Assembly has failed to deliver adequate solutions to some of the most pressing challenges of our time.
Global warming continues to threaten the planet, while commitments to reduce emissions often remain unfulfilled. Insurgencies, terrorism and armed conflicts persist in different regions, displacing millions and undermining international peace. Political instability, democratic backsliding and the polarisation of global powers have further weakened international cooperation. Rivalries among major powers frequently take precedence over collective responsibility, reducing multilateral diplomacy to a contest of political influence.
The fundamental weakness of the General Assembly lies in its limited enforcement powers. Under the UN Charter, most of its resolutions are recommendations rather than legally binding decisions. Although it provides an important platform for dialogue and international consensus, it cannot compel states to implement its recommendations. Moreover, the Security Council’s veto system, political divisions and the reluctance of powerful nations to compromise often obstruct meaningful action.
Consequently, the General Assembly risks becoming a forum where the world discusses its problems more effectively than it resolves them. Nevertheless, dismissing it entirely would be unwise, as it remains a vital platform for smaller nations, global cooperation and the articulation of international norms. The real challenge is not merely to preserve the United Nations but to reform it. Stronger accountability, more effective implementation mechanisms and greater political commitment are essential if multilateralism is to remain relevant.
Closing Perspective
UN aims that violence be limited to military necessity and that parties actively address humanitarian crises they create. In March 2025, the Academy’s Global Security and International Affairs program convened experts to assess the effectiveness and future of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) amid evolving armed conflicts and weakening rule of law. Participants identified major challenges: persistent violations of IHL, geopolitical tensions, autonomous weapons, AI in warfare, and the erosion of humanitarian norms along with degradation of democratic ethos
Key concerns included:
1. Relevance of UN in influencing belligerent behavior.
2. Compatibility of evolving nuclear doctrines with UN Resolutions.
3. Effectiveness of international courts, especially the ICC.
4. UN’s limited ability to address all forms of civilian harm.
While some see IHL as still influential—citing states’ claims of compliance—others noted its manipulation to justify civilian harm. Enforcement mechanisms such as courts, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure were debated. Gaps in IHL’s scope were acknowledged, particularly regarding nuclear warfare and emerging technologies.
Though, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is an integral part of international law; international law itself has just become power politics rather than justifiable instrument. International law, today, increasingly appears less as a neutral instrument of justice and more as a tool shaped by power politics. The world possesses established rules to limit the brutality of war, yet the institutions (UN) designed to promote international peace and security cannot always ensure compliance. While it was conceived to regulate state conduct, protect human dignity, and preserve peace, its selective enforcement and uneven application have weakened its moral authority. Powerful states often evade accountability, while weaker nations face stricter scrutiny, creating a perception that law serves influence rather than equity. This imbalance undermines global trust and had reduced international law to a strategic device in hands of powerful state rather than a principled framework for the globe. Contenders stress the importance of engaging wider audiences, including the public, whose moral instincts often align with IHL principles. The discussion concluded with calls for renewed commitment, innovative compliance strategies, and stronger collaboration among governments, civil society, and international organizations to preserve IHL’s relevance in modern warfare. The credibility of the UN ultimately depends not only on its ability to formulate legal principles, but also on its capacity to translate them into effective protection for human life and dignity.
If sovereignty is restored but human dignity is neglected, if treaties are signed but victims are forgotten, and if military victory is mistaken for reconciliation, then the conflict may be declared ‘over’ while its deeper wounds remain ‘open’.

India@79: From Political Freedom to Constitutional Freedom

India proudly calls itself the world’s largest democracy. This claim is well-founded when judged by the strength of its democratic processes. Elections are conducted regularly and on an unprecedented scale. Governments are elected through universal adult franchise, electoral outcomes are generally respected be it majority government or coalition government, and political power changes hands peacefully. […]

Professional Education and the Crisis of Student Accountability

The crisis in higher education today is not merely about the genuineness of degrees, but about the genuineness of the individuals pursuing them. Prestigious professions such as law, journalism, medicine and engineering demand discipline, ethical commitment, intellectual honesty, and a sincere dedication toward learning. Unfortunately, a significant number of students seek these degrees not out of passion for knowledge or service to society, but merely for status, social recognition, or financial security.
The true worth of a professional degree is not measured by the paper certificate issued by a university, but by the competence, integrity, and responsibility of the person holding it. A law graduate without commitment to justice and morality, a journalist unconcerned with truth and accountability; a medical student lacking compassion and rigorous study habits, and an engineer indifferent toward precision and innovation becomes a liability to society rather than an asset.
One of the major concerns is the behavioural approach many students adopt toward their elementary and higher education. From the earliest stages of schooling, education is often treated as a formality rather than a process of character-building and intellectual development. Attendance without participation, rote learning without understanding, cheating in examinations, dependence on shortcuts, negligence toward assignments, and lack of respect for teachers gradually create a weak academic foundation. When such attitudes continue into higher education, the degree may be earned, but the knowledge and professional ethics remain absent.
Professional education demands dedication, perseverance, and continuous self-improvement. However, many students today seek instant success without investing sincere effort. They aspire to become advocates without studying jurisprudence deeply, doctors without understanding the sanctity of human life, engineers without problem-solving abilities, and journalists without research or ethical responsibility. Degrees obtained without genuine merit ultimately produce professionals who struggle in real-life situations.
Ironically, after years of academic negligence and indifference, many individuals shift the blame entirely onto the “system.” This deflection creates a dangerous mindset that threatens both societal well-being and professional ethics. While educational institutions and systemic flaws certainly exist, personal accountability cannot be ignored. A flawed system may create obstacles, but it does not compel dishonesty, laziness, irresponsibility, or intellectual complacency. No institution can transform an unwilling learner into a competent professional.
The decline in professional standards is therefore not solely an institutional failure; it is also a moral and behavioural crisis among students. Genuine education requires curiosity, discipline, humility, and respect for learning. Without these qualities, even the most prestigious degree becomes hollow. Society suffers when titles replace talent and certificates replace competence.
When students enter adulthood believing they owe nothing to their craft but are owed everything by the system, institutional trust breaks down. Ultimately, the dignity of professions like law, journalism, medicine, and engineering depends not merely on universities awarding degrees, but on whether students truly become worthy of the responsibilities those degrees represent.

Punishing the Innocent? A Critical Analysis of Vicarious Liability in Crime

Introduction : The general principle in criminal law is liability is personal, not vicarious. This means that one person cannot be held liable for the crimes of another (other than where a person has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the act of another). However, while prima facie,  a principal is not to be made criminally […]

Religious Conversion Jurisprudence : Subjective Overview For Law Students

The recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dinesh v. State of U.P. (2026) and Jitendra Sahani v. State of U.P. (2025) has once again brought conversion jurisprudence to the forefront of constitutional discourse. The core issue examined is whether religious conversion alters a person’s caste or tribal status for the purpose of constitutional benefits under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. This analysis has been drawn from four case laws namely:-
1. State of Kerala v. Chandramohanan 2004 SC
2. S. Paul Raj v. Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk 2021 SC
3. Jitendra Sahani v. State of U.P. Allahabad HC 2025
4. Dinesh v. State of U.P. Allahabad HC 2026
I. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REGARDING THE CONVERSION
Conversion jurisprudence primarily revolves around and takes it source from:-
 Article 341 – Scheduled Caste
 Article 342 – Scheduled Tribes
 Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 which says on Scheduled Castes conversion The most critical provision regarding conversion is Paragraph 3 of the Order, which establishes a religious bar for SC status:
• Initial Restriction (1950): The original order mandated that only individuals professing the Hindu religion could be deemed members of a Scheduled Caste.
• Expansion to Sikhs (1956): The order was amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 to include also those professing the Sikh religion.
• Expansion to Buddhists (1990): A further amendment in 1990 extended SC status to individuals professing the Buddhist religion also.
Impact of Conversion to Other Religions

• Loss of Status: If an SC individual converts to a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism (such as Islam or Christianity), they cease to be recognized as a member of a Scheduled Caste.
• Loss of Benefits: Upon conversion to these excluded religions, individuals lose eligibility for reservation benefits and other constitutional protections guaranteed to SCs.
• Judicial Stance: Courts, including the Supreme Court in Soosai v. Union of India (1986) and recent rulings like C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary (2024), have consistently upheld that SC status is nullified upon conversion to Christianity because the “experience of caste-based social disability” is legally deemed to cease in these faiths.
 Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 which says Under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) is religion-neutral. This stands in direct contrast to the Scheduled Castes (SC) Order, which requires individuals to profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism.
 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Key Differences from Scheduled Caste (SC) Status
• No Religious Bar: The 1950 ST Order contains no provision similar to “Paragraph 3” of the SC Order. Consequently, a person does not automatically lose their ST status upon converting to Christianity, Islam, or any other religion.
• Criteria for being member of schedule tribe : ST status is based on tribal identity, which is defined by “primitive traits,” “distinctive culture,” and “geographical isolation” rather than religious affiliation.
The core question arises that does conversion alter the caste/tribal status of a person? If yes, when? If no, why?
II. CORE DOCTRINAL DISTINCTION: SC vs ST
Category Effect of Conversion Legal Position
Scheduled Caste (SC) Religion-sensitive Loss of SC status if converted to Christianity/Islam (except Sikh/Buddhist)
Scheduled Tribe (ST) Religion-neutral Conversion does NOT automatically terminate tribal status

This distinction is the backbone of conversion jurisprudence.
III. WHEN STATUS REMAINS SAME AFTER CONVERSION
1 Scheduled Tribe – Identity Based on Ethnicity, Not Religion
In State of Kerala v. Chandramohanan (2004):
Supreme Court in factual continuity test held that:
o Tribal identity is ethnic and cultural, not religious.
o Conversion does NOT automatically terminate ST status.
o Conversion status is variable and depends on:
 Continuation of tribal customs
 Adherence to customary laws
 Social disabilities suffered
 Community acceptance
Thus, status remains SAME when:
• Tribal customs continue.
• Social backwardness persists.
• Community identity remains intact.
• No constitutional bar exists.
Status may change if:
• Long assimilation into mainstream society.
• Complete abandonment of tribal traits.
2 Marriage Does NOT Change Caste
In Dinesh v. State of U.P. (2026) Allahabad HC considered the Birth-Based Identity Rule in which the court held that:
o Marriage does not alter caste by birth.
o Even inter-caste marriage does not extinguish SC/ST identity.
o Woman retains caste she was born into.
Status remains SAME when:
• Change occurs due to marriage.
• No statutory disqualification applies.
• Birth identity continues.

3 Conversion Does NOT Change Caste by Birth (For Certain Legal Contexts)
In S. Paul Raj Case (2021):
Supreme Court held considering the social origin test
o Conversion does not change caste by birth.
o Administrative classification (BC certificate) irrelevant.
o Inter-caste benefit depends on birth caste, not religion.
Status remains SAME when:
• Issue relates to social origin (inter-caste marriage).
• Question concerns caste by birth.
• No constitutional exclusion applies.
IV. WHEN STATUS DOES NOT REMAIN SAME
1. Scheduled Caste – Religion-Specific Restriction
In Jitendra Sahani v. State of U.P. (2025): the court held that Article 341 and SC Order 1950 restrict Schedule Caste status to:
o Hindu
o Sikh
o Buddhist
Person converting to Christianity or Islam i.e other than above mentioned religions falls outside definition and cannot claim SC reservation under constitutional provisions. If so it will amount to dual identity which amounts to constitutional fraud. Religion restriction expressly applies.Thus, status does NOT remain SAME when person professes Christianity/Islam. The constitutional SC benefits ceases.
Conclusion
A person’s caste/tribal status remains the same in case if :
1. No constitutional prohibition applies (e.g., ST cases).
2. Identity is determined by birth and ethnicity.
3. Social backwardness persists.
4. Community recognition continues.
5. Change is due to marriage (not relevant to caste).
6. Issue concerns social origin, not reservation eligibility.
Status changes in case if:
1. Constitutional Order explicitly restricts recognition (SC Order 1950).
2. Person professes excluded religion.
3. Claim concerns reservation benefits under Article 341.
4. Conversion is coupled with complete assimilation.
Courts prohibits:
• Dual religious identity
• Manipulative use of conversion for reservation
• Conversion for misuse of welfare schemes
Thus, conversion does not automatically erase social identity. But constitutional entitlements depend on statutory design. The conversion jurisprudence balances:
• Freedom of religion
• Protection of disadvantaged groups
• Prevention of misuse
• Preservation of constitutional scheme

Breaking: WhatsApp University Strikes Down E-Challans!

Viral Claim that the Supreme Court of India has banned photo-based traffic challans (e-challans).A message circulating on social media claimed that the Supreme Court of India has banned photo-based traffic challans (e-challans) from January 1, 2026, and that a driver’s signature is now required for a challan to be valid in court.
In a recent Fact-Check Findings done by Law Trend’s
• The claim is false and misleading—there is no Supreme Court order banning photo-based challans or requiring driver signatures for validity.
• Photographic and digital evidence (like photos and videos from cameras) remains legal and admissible under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019.
• In fact, the Supreme Court and courts have generally supported the use of technology (such as CCTV and automated enforcement) to improve traffic law enforcement and road safety.
• There is no legal requirement for a challan to bear the driver’s signature. Notices sent electronically to the registered owner are valid.
Conclusion:
The viral message claiming a ban on photo-based challans after January 1, 2026 is baseless. E-challans issued with photographic evidence continue to be legally valid, and people are advised not to share unverified posts on this topic.

The Laws of War in an Era of Endless Conflict

Introduction: Violence is one of the striking features of the present day. Violent attack on fellow human beings are as frequent as they are varied. Violence occur in all forms and at all levels of intensity ranging from isolated kidnapping or assassination of single individuals to such large scale activities such as massive bombardment or  […]

Sushant Rohilla Suicide Case : Suo motto Decision of Delhi High Court.

The Delhi HC held that students enrolled in any recognised law college/university in India cannot be barred from taking examinations or progressing academically solely because of not meeting minimum attendance requirements. It emphasised that no institution may impose attendance norms over and above what is prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Background The […]