Introduction: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the transfer of movable and immovable property. Like, other acts in this act also some rules are governed by the doctrines laid down in precedents. Lis pendens is also a doctrine that applies to section 52 of the act. The section says that during the pendency of a suit regarding the title of the property, any new interest in respect of that property should not be created, except with permission of the Court. What is the doctrine of Lis Pendens? Lis pendens, “lis” means “litigation” and “pendens” means “pending” hence “pending litigation”, it is based on the Latin phrase “pendente lite nihil innovetur” which means “during a litigation nothing new should be introduced” It protects the rights and interests of the parties involved in a suit and also the rights and interests of the third person regarding the immovable property. The doctrine of lis pendens is based on necessity, when litigation is pending concerning the right of a property such property cannot be transferred, however, if the transfer had been made during the pendency of litigation the person to whom such property is transferred shall be bound by the decision of the Court, therefore his interest become contingent to the order of the Court. In Faiyaz Husain Khan v. Munshi Prag Narain, the Privy Council held that the doctrine is based on the necessity for the final order. Origin of the doctrine: The doctrine of lis pendens was first used in the case Bellamy v. Sabine by Lord Justice Turner, where he said “This is a doctrine common to law and equity courts, which I apprehend, on the grounds that, if alienation pendente lite was allowed to prevail, it would simply not be possible for any action or suit to be resolved successfully. In any case, the Plaintiff will be responsible for the Defendant who alienated the property before the judgment or the decree and must be obliged, according to the same course of action, to initiate these proceedings de novo.” In Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors., the Court held that “lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a Court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgement therein.” Applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens: According to the section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the pendency of the suit will initiate from the date on which the plaint has been presented or the proceeding of the suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction and remain until the final order or decree has been obtained by such Court. The Court held in the case of Abdul Aziz and Ors. v. District Judge, Rampur and Anr., that pendency of the suit continues until the final decree or order in a suit is completely satisfied or discharged, in fact, the execution proceeding is a part of the proceeding of the suit. In Sardara Singh v. Mohan Lal and Ors., and Iqbal Singh v. Mahender Singh and Anr., held that the doctrine of lis pendens is also applicable in the arbitration proceedings. Essentials of the doctrine of lis pendens: There are some essential conditions for the application of the doctrine of lis pendens, those are- Pending of suit or proceeding. Suit or proceeding must be pending in the competent Court. The right of immovable property must be directly or specifically involved in the suit. The suit or proceeding shall not be conclusive. Disputed property must be transferred. Transfer of that property shall affect the right of the parties to litigation. In the case of Dev Raj Dogra and Ors. v. Gyan Chand Jain and Ors., Honourable Justice A. N. Sen has laid down a few essential conditions as The right of property must be in question in the suit or proceeding. The suit or proceeding must not be conclusive. The property in dispute cannot be transferred unless the Court has permitted to transfer. Hence, the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a property only when above mention conditions are fulfilled and not to any property that is involved in a suit. These conditions restrict the misuse of the doctrine. Exception of the doctrine of lis pendens: Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has an exception, which states “except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.” It means a disputed property, the title of which has been decided yet can be transferred, with the permission of the Court. In Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj & Anr., The court allowed the sale of the property while the litigation was pending. Conclusion: After scrutinizing the different facets regarding the doctrine of lis pendens or Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, we can conclude that the purpose of the doctrine of lis pendens is to safeguard the rights and interest of the parties to the suit and third party to whom such disputed property has been transferred. And the transferee though not a party to the suit become bound of the order of the Court in the proceeding of the property. However, the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to every property involved in a suit but only when the above-mentioned conditions are fulfilled. References- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Black’s Law Dictionary Dr. R K Sinha, The Transfer of Property Act The doctrine of Lis Pendens (https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-lis-pendens/) Faiyaz Husain Khan v. Munshi Prag Narain (1907) Bellamy v. Sabine, (1857) Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. Santa Singh and Ors., 1973 Abdul Aziz and Ors. v. District Judge, Rampur ad Anr. AIR 1994 Sardara Singh v. Mohan Lal and Ors., AIR 1990 Iqbal Singh v. Mahender Singh and Anr. Dev Raj Dogra and Ors. v. Gyan Chand Jain and Ors., 1981 Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj & Anr., (2010) About Author: Risha is a
Prashant Kishor’s Setback: 5 Critical Lessons for Indian Election Strategy
The recent political setback faced by Prashant Kishor (PK) in Bihar has triggered serious conversations on strategy, leadership, and the evolution of voter behaviour in India’s heartland. For someone widely regarded as the architect behind several successful national and state-level campaigns, PK’s own political foray not translating into electoral success offers a rare opportunity to decode what truly shapes electoral outcomes in Bihar. This is not a commentary on defeat—it is a study in political realities. 1. Charisma Is Not a Substitute for Cadre and Organisational Depth Indian politics—especially in states like Bihar—runs on organisational depth, not just messaging brilliance. PK’s Jan Suraaj movement achieved significant visibility through high-profile padyatras and media engagement, but visibility is not the same as a guaranteed vote-bank. Electoral success in Bihar hinges on an apparatus that translates positive public opinion into actual ballots on election day. Established parties like RJD, JD(U), BJP, and even smaller caste-based outfits have decades of entrenched grassroots networks: PK’s approach focused heavily on mass outreach rallies and an all-encompassing communication strategy. While this builds awareness, it cannot replace the meticulous, low-profile work of a booth-level machinery. Bihar’s political culture rewards relationships built over generations and loyalties cemented through reciprocal social and political support, not campaigns built over mere months, regardless of their polish. Lesson: Mass outreach rallies and a powerful brand message are insufficient. Sustained political success requires deep, micro-level operational strength to convert sentiment into votes. 2. Bihar Votes on Social Coalitions, Not Individual Narratives PK attempted to create a “new politics”—one that was issue-based, youth-centred, and development-oriented, moving beyond traditional identity politics. This approach appeals intellectually to the urban and educated classes. However, Bihar’s electoral psychology is historically and fundamentally shaped by identity clusters and social engineering: Yadavs, Kurmis, Koeris, Muslims, Paswans, Kushwahas, and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs). These well-defined blocs do not shift their allegiance overnight based on a technocratic manifesto. While his message of governance appealed to groups frustrated with the status quo, it critically lacked penetration among the traditional caste anchors whose consolidation ultimately determines electoral margins. Established parties excel at identifying and mobilising these identity groups through established leaders who speak the cultural language of that particular segment. PK’s movement, being intentionally identity-neutral, failed to build an alternative social glue strong enough to displace the existing, deep-rooted identity fault lines. Lesson: Electoral engineering in Bihar requires either the dismantling or the successful reconfiguration of existing social coalitions; merely offering a technocratic or issue-based alternative will not suffice against entrenched identity politics. 3. Anti-Establishment Messaging Works Only When You Have a Loyal Base PK framed his campaign around the palpable dissatisfaction with traditional parties—focusing on systemic issues like corruption, chronic unemployment, and mass migration. While the grievance is real, anti-establishment politics, by its nature, requires a loyal constituency that is already disillusioned and trusts the new alternative implicitly. For example, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) succeeded in Delhi because there was a clear, widespread governance grievance (corruption, poor public services) and a large, aspirational middle-class mass that fundamentally trusted Arvind Kejriwal’s activist, anti-graft identity. In Bihar, despite genuine frustrations, voters often display a pragmatic caution. They view the established parties (RJD, JD(U), BJP) as “known entities”—they know what they will get, warts and all. PK’s platform, being an untested, fresh political vehicle, was viewed with skepticism, especially in rural areas. The anti-incumbency vote often consolidates behind the strongest, most familiar opposition, not necessarily the newest disruptor. The trust deficit for an outsider platform proved too wide to cross. Lesson: Outsider politics must first earn insider trust through an extended period of reliable local engagement before the electorate will commit to a disruptive new platform. 4. Bihar’s Politics Reward Consistency Over Disruption PK’s professional temperament is often described as mobile, experimental, and disruptive—qualities that make him a stellar political strategist capable of rapid course correction across diverse campaigns. Bihar’s political DNA, however, prefers predictable loyalties and stable alignments. Voters in Bihar remember and reward leaders who stay within a defined ideological or party lane for the long haul, not those who strategically advise or align with various national parties. PK’s well-known past association with multiple, often ideologically opposed, national parties (BJP, JD(U), Congress) created a background noise of confusion about his fundamental ideological location and long-term commitment. This perceived lack of positional clarity eroded the foundational trust required for an individual to launch a new political movement. Political credibility is built on positional consistency. Lesson: Personal credibility in the complex political theatre of Bihar is derived from long-term positional clarity and consistent ideological messaging, not short-term strategic brilliance or cross-party tactical alliances. 5. Bihar Wants Development, But Through Familiar, Culturally Digestible Channels It is a misconception that Bihar voters reject the idea of development (Vikas). They emphatically want it—but they prefer it to be delivered through leaders who feel socially relatable and ethically consistent with their established worldview. PK’s model heavily emphasised data, governance metrics, structural reforms, and technical expertise. This is excellent on paper but often feels emotionally distant and abstract for the average rural voter who values immediate, visible improvements and access through familiar intermediaries. Nitish Kumar’s long-standing “vikas purush” image succeeded precisely because it was often framed and delivered through the existing caste-cultural lens and through local leaders who understood the community’s emotional and social needs. Development must be tangible and relatable. Lesson: Effective political communication mandates that the message of development (Vikas) must be delivered in a culturally digestible language, connecting policy outcomes to the emotional and social fabric of the electorate.
Online Gaming Bill 2025: Law vs Morality vs Employment – Youth Addiction or Jobs at Stake?
The Online Gaming Bill 2025 has triggered a nationwide debate: should the state safeguard morality and youth welfare, or should it preserve employment and revenue? This Bill, which proposes a blanket ban on real-money gaming platforms like Dream11, MPL, and Zupee, stands at the delicate intersection of law, morality, and economy. The Moral Argument: Protecting Youth From a moral lens, the state carries a parens patriae duty—to protect vulnerable citizens, especially the youth. The Online Gaming Bill 2025 responds to rising cases of students falling into debt, families facing disputes, and even suicides linked to gaming losses. These platforms foster a culture of instant gratification, weakening values like patience, hard work, and restraint. Philosophical traditions from Aristotle’s virtue ethics to Gandhi’s principle of self-restraint remind us that unchecked indulgence corrupts society. Thus, the Bill asserts that law must uphold morality when social harmony is endangered. The Economic Reality: Jobs and Revenues at Stake Yet, the economic impact cannot be ignored. The Indian online gaming industry has generated lakhs of jobs for coders, marketers, and designers while contributing thousands of crores in taxes. With Dream11’s exit, even the BCCI faces the prospect of losing significant sponsorship revenue. Critics argue that a blanket ban could push gaming into the unregulated black economy, where neither taxation nor consumer protection exists. Instead, regulated oversight—with spending caps, age restrictions, and compliance checks—could protect society without destroying livelihoods. The Online Gaming Bill 2025: Law–Morality Crossroads At its core, the Online Gaming Bill 2025 highlights the tension between law and morality. From a utilitarian perspective, banning gaming maximizes welfare by reducing addiction. From a Kantian lens, gambling is intrinsically immoral and should be prohibited regardless of economic benefits. Thus, Indian law faces a defining question: should it act as a moral guardian, prioritizing virtue, or as an economic pragmatist, sustaining jobs and revenues? The real challenge is to balance freedom, social ethics, and economic survival. Conclusion: Beyond Ban vs Profit India’s choice is not simply between morality and employment. A society that normalizes gambling risks moral decay, but a state that ignores economic realities risks unrest. The solution lies in calibrated regulation, public awareness, and redefining entertainment beyond gambling. The Online Gaming Bill 2025 must evolve into a framework that harmonizes moral responsibility with economic pragmatism—for the true test of law is not choosing sides but reconciling them. The Online Gaming Bill 2025 has ignited a nationwide debate—should the state prioritize moral order and youth welfare, or should it preserve economic growth and employment? The Bill proposes a blanket ban on real-money gaming platforms such as Dream11, MPL, and Zupee, citing rising concerns over gambling addiction, student debt, and deteriorating values among youth. The discussions surrounding the online gaming bill 2025 india have become increasingly relevant in this context. The online gaming bill 2025 india raises questions about the balance between regulation and personal freedom. The Moral Argument: Protecting a Generation Understanding the Implications of the Online Gaming Bill 2025 India From a moral lens, the state carries a parens patriae duty—to safeguard its citizens, especially the vulnerable youth. Reports highlight how online fantasy and betting platforms blur the line between “skill” and “gambling.” College students and young professionals are lured with promises of easy wealth, only to spiral into debt traps. Family disputes, psychological stress, and even cases of suicides have been linked to gaming losses. Critics argue that the rise of such platforms fosters a culture of instant gratification, weakening virtues of hard work, patience, and restraint. From Aristotle’s virtue ethics to Gandhi’s insistence on self-restraint, moral philosophy repeatedly warns against temptations that undermine societal harmony. In this context, the Bill resonates with the principle that law must uphold morality when social fabric is endangered. The Economic Reality: Jobs and Revenues at Stake On the other hand, the online gaming sector in India has generated lakhs of jobs—from coders to marketers—and contributed thousands of crores in taxes. The exit of Dream11 from BCCI sponsorship, for instance, could reportedly cost the cricketing body hundreds of crores. For a developing economy, where youth unemployment already looms large, dismantling an industry of such magnitude seems counterproductive. Moreover, a blanket ban risks pushing gaming into the unregulated underground economy, where neither taxation nor player protection exists. Regulation, not prohibition, many argue, could strike a balance: age-gated entry, spending caps, and strict compliance could minimize harm while preserving livelihoods. The Law-Morality Crossroads At the heart of the Online Gaming Bill 2025 lies the eternal tension between law and morality. Law, in its essence, is not just a set of rules but a reflection of collective values. Morality, however, is more fluid—shaped by culture, ethics, and social expectations. When youth addiction and financial ruin rise, lawmakers feel compelled to intervene, yet the dilemma is whether legislation should enforce morality or merely regulate conduct. From a utilitarian perspective (Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill), the state must maximize overall welfare. Here, banning online gaming could prevent societal harm caused by addiction, debt, and family breakdowns. But it also inflicts economic harm by dismantling an industry that provides employment to lakhs and contributes significantly to the exchequer. On the other side, Kantian moral philosophy would insist that gambling—if intrinsically wrong—should not be tolerated, regardless of its economic benefits. The state then acts not as a market regulator but as a moral guardian, ensuring that citizens are not reduced to instruments of profit at the cost of their dignity. Thus, the Bill becomes a mirror: is Indian law to be shaped by moral paternalism, safeguarding virtue at all costs, or by economic pragmatism, allowing vice in a regulated form for collective gain? The crossroads demands not a simple choice, but a nuanced equilibrium where individual freedom, social ethics, and economic survival are balanced with care. Conclusion: Beyond Ban vs. Profit India’s challenge is not merely legal—it is civilizational. A society that normalizes gambling risks moral decay, but a state that ignores economic realities risks unemployment unrest. The real solution may lie in calibrated regulation, public
Operation Sindoor and the Evolving Architecture of Indian Strategic Retaliation
The launch of Operation Sindoor in the early hours of 7 May 2025 marked a watershed in the evolution of India’s counter-terror policy. Unlike the emotionally charged retaliatory strikes of the past, this was a precisely targeted, intelligence-driven, and doctrinally coherent operation, rooted not in vengeance but in calibrated statecraft. By striking multiple terror infrastructures across Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, India not only reinforced its red lines but also articulated a new lexicon of sovereignty and deterrence in the face of persistent cross-border terrorism. At the heart of this operation lies a fundamental recalibration: the transition from a reactive, diplomatically encumbered posture to a proactive, legally-informed strategic doctrine. The Indian state, long trapped between normative restraint and strategic vulnerability, appears to have now embraced what might be called a principle of responsible disruption. This principle holds that in an environment where non-state actors operate with impunity under the protective umbrella of hostile regimes, conventional deterrence becomes ineffectual unless supplemented by controlled, precise, and time-bound kinetic action. Operation Sindoor was calibrated to signal precisely this shift. It was limited in duration (23 minutes), narrow in scope (nine non-civilian targets), and proportionate in intention (counter-terror, not anti-state). By avoiding civilian or military infrastructure, India sought to deny Pakistan the legitimacy of a symmetrical response, while simultaneously demonstrating the reach and credibility of its precision-strike capabilities. The use of loitering munitions, satellite-guided targeting, and indigenous drone systems also reflected an increasingly autonomous defence ecosystem capable of conducting strategic operations without over-reliance on foreign platforms. In terms of legality, India’s justification draws credence from Article 51 of the UN Charter, which enshrines the right of self-defence in the event of an armed attack. The jurisprudence surrounding this article, especially post-9/11, has evolved to accommodate pre-emptive and anticipatory self-defence against non-state actors in cross-border sanctuaries. While grey zones remain in international law regarding the violation of territorial sovereignty, India’s articulation — reinforced by public evidence, international briefings, and the avoidance of civilian harm — appears to have been met with tacit acceptance, if not open endorsement, from key global actors. The unusually broad international support — from the United States and France to Saudi Arabia and the UAE — indicates a growing normative shift: that sovereignty cannot be an alibi for impunity when terror is knowingly harbored. Domestically, the political implications are both immediate and layered. In an election year, the operation inevitably entered the political discourse, with the ruling establishment framing it as evidence of decisive leadership and credible deterrence. However, beyond partisan gain, Operation Sindoor has contributed to an institutional redefinition of civil-military synergy, with intelligence, operational command, and executive decision-making functioning in visible coordination. The absence of leakage, the preparedness for retaliatory scenarios, and the robustness of internal defence drills point to a maturing national security doctrine that is less performative and more procedural. Critics, however, remain cautious. The escalation risks inherent in striking targets across a nuclear-armed frontier are undeniable. Moreover, questions persist around long-term efficacy: Can precision strikes alone dismantle entrenched terror networks? Does kinetic retaliation address the ideological and financial supply chains of terrorism? These are valid concerns. But the point of such operations is not finality — it is deterrence, disruption, and denial. They are part of a broader ecosystem of counter-terrorism that must include diplomatic isolation, financial surveillance, cyber countermeasures, and grassroots de-radicalization. In conclusion, Operation Sindoor reflects a paradigmatic shift in India’s approach to cross-border terrorism — one that combines constitutional restraint with strategic assertiveness. It neither romanticizes war nor shies away from hard power. Instead, it seeks to craft a doctrine of proportionate sovereignty: firm enough to restore deterrence, restrained enough to avoid escalation, and precise enough to retain legal legitimacy. In a world where non-state violence challenges the very foundations of statehood, such operations may well become the grammar of 21st-century defence policy.
India-Kuwait Relations: Charting a Strategic Path for the Future
Prime Minister Modi’s Landmark Visit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kuwait on December 21-22 marks a historic moment in India’s West Asia strategy. This is the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Kuwait since Indira Gandhi’s trip in 1981, ending a 43-year gap. Postponed earlier due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the visit is an opportunity to strengthen ties and redefine relations with Kuwait, a key member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and a significant player in the Middle East. Why Kuwait Matters for India Geopolitical Importance: Kuwait holds a pivotal position in the Gulf, bordered by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and hosts critical American military bases. Its neutral stance and role as a mediator in regional conflicts make it a valuable partner for fostering Middle East stability. For India, closer ties with Kuwait can enhance its influence in the Gulf region and complement its partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Energy & Economic Ties: Kuwait, with the fourth-largest sovereign wealth fund globally ($924 billion), is a major oil supplier to India, meeting about 3% of its crude oil needs. However, the relationship has the potential to go beyond energy. Collaborations in renewable energy, infrastructure, and trade can take economic ties to the next level. Addressing Challenges Indian Diaspora: With around one million Indians in Kuwait forming the largest expatriate group, labor rights remain a concern. Addressing issues like exploitation and poor living conditions requires diplomatic efforts to ensure worker protection. Learning from Others: Philippines: Successfully negotiated labor agreements to safeguard its workers. Japan: Integrated energy and technology partnerships with Gulf nations. India can adopt similar strategies to balance economic interests with humanitarian goals. Opportunities for Growth Economic Collaboration: Kuwait’s ‘Vision 2035’ aims to diversify its economy beyond oil. India can contribute through: Infrastructure development. Establishing IITs, IIMs, and modern healthcare facilities. Collaborations in renewable energy through initiatives like the International Solar Alliance. Defense & Space: Modernizing Kuwait’s military infrastructure offers a chance for India to expand defense exports and training. Space technology partnerships, including satellite launches, can further deepen ties. A New Era of Cooperation Prime Minister Modi’s visit is poised to open a golden chapter in India-Kuwait relations. By addressing labor challenges, fostering economic partnerships, and exploring emerging areas like renewable energy and defense, the two nations can build a dynamic and sustainable relationship. This visit signals a shared commitment to mutual growth and regional stability, ushering in a future of enhanced collaboration.