As history suggests, India has always ensured to voice its stand and actively participate in becoming a party to international conventions. Subsequently, India is a party to several international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, contrary to this, when the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were formulated in 1977, India did not ratify to the international treaties, although it had actively participated during negotiations. This legal blog aims to study and highlight the reasons for India's non- ratification to the Additional Protocols and analyse whether the reasons given by India for non-ratification were justified.

India had achieved independence after huge bloodshed only for the citizens of the country so that they could live happily, without any interference from outside, which is known as sovereignty. Just after three tears, on the 26th day of November 1950, India had drafted its first Constitution, with its founding fathers being Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Sir Benegal Narsing Rao, Surendra Nath Mukherjee and others. The Constitution of India has 22 parts and 395 Articles, and Part III of the Constitution is enshrined with the Fundamental Rights, ranging from Articles 12 to 35. Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India gives the freedom of speech and expression to all the citizens of India. The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Devendrappa (1998) that reasonable restrictions may have to be imposed in the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of maintaining discipline in public services, even though it may not have been mentioned as a ground in Article 19(2).

Perhaps the most well-known definition of ‘global governance’, James Rosenau designates it as ‘organisations of rubrics at all stages of hominoid action – from the domestic to the worldwide organisation.’ Today the perception of authority has wedged the attention of researchers in fields like political science, economics, business studies, and global relations to analyse an inclusive variety of marvels such as school life, worldwide policy-making, global organisations, public health, monetary dealings, street gangs or traffic rules. Children and youth are in many circumstances obtainable as ruled by others – parents, teachers, social services, religious establishments, or out of control. For youthful scholars, though, the opposite has been basic in the influence of the field of juvenile studies over the last decades. The intervention of children and young people certainly also impact the schemes of guidelines and governance that border them. They are thus as much theme to these systems as they can be energetic and shapers of them, in many cases organised with or in equivalent to the adults adjacent them. Contempt this heading of children as being both marks and shapers of governance, though, with some exceptions, the methodical study of the governance of children and youth have established little consideration within childhood studies as well as to the examination of how child rights are assumed to form in national and multinational politics, law and society.

Crime and its reporting happen in relays, a country for its good governance & maintenance of tranquility requires complaints to be registered, these then need to be taken in cognizance and resolved in an established manner. A proper administration of the criminal justice system, therefore, requires balancing the rights of the victim and the accused. In India, the distribution of power takes place among its departments and thus reporting of crime, and its settlement happens by involving various branches of government. Reporting of crime is the initial step in the criminal justice system. The ‘First Information Report’ is an essential process in the investigation of a criminal case, in common parlance and in media reporting.