Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>With Trump's victory and upcoming GOP control of the Senate, the Supreme Court looms large.</li><li>Trump appointed a third of the current Supreme Court in just one term.</li></ul>During Donald Trump's first term as president, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, giving it a 6-3 conservative supermajority.His Supreme Court appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — later voted to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">overturn</a> Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had afforded women a constitutional right to an abortion.With Trump having <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wins-presidential-election-race-2024-11">won a second term</a> in office, he now has the potential to further shape the court in ways that no other president has done in modern times.<h2 id="52e7d3b8-38b3-4103-addf-05a14a7d9c87">Trump's second term gives Thomas and Alito a chance to retire</h2><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-win-senate-election-majority-election-2024-11">Republicans won a majority in the US Senate</a> alongside Trump's victory, which means that they'll be working in tandem should a vacancy arise on the court in Trump's second term.Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, are two of the most stalwart conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while there's always a chance that a justice can step down from their post, both Thomas and Alito have been institutions on the court for years.Thomas was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and has served on the body since 1991. Meanwhile, Alito was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and took his seat on the court in 2006.There's no indication that either man is retiring from the bench. But Republicans will be in the driver's seat to make an appointment should either man step down over the next four years.Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider that Thomas is a figure who might step down."If I'm Clarence Thomas, I'm thinking now is a good time to retire," he said. "He's been on the court for a long time. His legacy is frankly mixed at this point between his wife's involvement with the insurrection in 2020 and his ongoing ethics scandal."(Thomas has faced a wave of criticism after <a target="_blank" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow">ProPublica in April 2023 published</a> a report that detailed how he had taken luxury vacations funded by the billionaire mega donor Harlan Crow — and had not disclosed the trips.)<h2 id="e08ad357-0202-444a-9550-87693e9d2b8c">Or the court's makeup could stay the same</h2>While Trump will surely want to make another Supreme Court appointment, his ambitions may not necessarily align with the feelings of the justices themselves.<div type="image" title="Clarence Thomas" height="1080" width="1920" msid="115031465" hostid="261" sizebytes="62842"></div>Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told BI that it's far from a given that any particular judge — even one with a like-minded political ideology — will step down because of Trump's election."I think they're independent-minded and they're not just going to resign because of Trump," he said. "They like what they're doing."Tobias also noted that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/election-results-trump-harris-presidential-election-2024-11">the extent</a> of the GOP's Senate majority — which is still up in the air — could make a big difference in what kind of jurist could actually win confirmation."Best-case scenario it may be 55-45 but more like 52-48 or something like that," he said of the eventual Republican Senate makeup. "So they're not going to be able to do everything they want, and there are people like Lindsey Graham and [Susan] Collins and [Lisa] Murkowski who may not go along on someone that's too crazy."<h2 id="b2c291bb-c313-447a-9514-9937c508fb69">Sweeping reforms won't occur</h2>Many top Democrats have long eyed changes to the Supreme Court, whether it be expansion or some sort of ethics reform.Biden this year laid out a plan to institute a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-supreme-court-has-lost-its-legitimacy-2024-10">binding code of conduct</a> for the court and create 18-year term limits for justices. He also wanted to see lawmakers pass a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.But with Trump soon to be back in the White House and a Republican-led Senate on the way, those plans are on ice indefinitely.The GOP sees the current composition of the court as the fruit of decades of work to ensure a conservative tilt. Leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky over the years have criticized Democratic attempts to reform the court/McConnell played a leading role in blocking the 2016 nomination of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-confirms-merrick-garland-attorney-general-2021-2">Merrick Garland</a> — now the US Attorney General — to the Supreme Court. At the time, the Kentuckian was the Senate's majority leader, and a fierce opponent of then-Democratic President Barack Obama.During a Wednesday press conference in Washington, McConnell reveled in Republicans flipping the Senate."One of the most gratifying results of the Senate becoming Republican: the filibuster will stand, there won't be any new states admitted that will benefit the other side," he said. "And we'll quit beating up the Supreme Court."

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses. The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children. <div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage. The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented. In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

<keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Delhi High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Delhi High Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday, has appointed a sole <keyword id="20233811" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="arbitrator" source="keywords">arbitrator</keyword> to address the conflicts between <keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> and its former MD <keyword id="20115473" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ashneer-Grover" source="keywords">Ashneer Grover</keyword>. The disputes center around allegations that Grover breached confidentiality terms outlined in his <keyword id="20424040" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="employment-agreement" source="keywords">employment agreement</keyword> with the fintech firm. Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe. BharatPe's plea under a relevant section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought to resolve issues stemming from Grover's alleged breach of confidentiality by disclosing sensitive company information on social media. BharatPe proposed former <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> Justice Hemant Gupta as the arbitrator, but Grover suggested Justice (Retired) J.R. Midha instead. Grover's advocate, Giriraj Subramanium, did not oppose arbitration, but proposed that the matter be handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), given its ongoing involvement with related disputes over the shareholders' agreement. BharatPe's advocate, Anuj Berry, contested this, asserting that the employment agreement specifies arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which the Court upheld. Additionally, BharatPe had previously sought a restraining order to prevent Grover from publicly disclosing company details. The Delhi High Court had previously imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on Ashneer Grover for breaching a court order by posting derogatory content about BharatPe on social media. Justice Rekha Palli, expressing disapproval of Grover's repeated violations, mandated that he pay the costs to the Delhi High Court Clerk Association. Grover issued an unconditional apology, which the court accepted, contingent upon the payment of the imposed costs.

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

Expanding the scope of its hearing in the <keyword id="19980518" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali" source="keywords">Patanjali</keyword> Ayurved case, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday took a stern view of <keyword id="20610549" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="misleading-advertisements" source="keywords">misleading advertisements</keyword> by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice which takes "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health. The court passed the order after Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they have issued unqualified public apology in as many as 67 newspapers over misleading advertisements and are willing to issue additional advertisements expressing their contrition. The bench said the public apology published in newspapers were not on record and asked those to be filed within two days. It posted the matter for April 30 for further consideration. While hearing the Patanjali case, the apex court said the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act and the related rules also needed a closer examination. It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms which have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation". "We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said. The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws. It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of Ayush asking them to not initiate any action under rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The bench also asked the <keyword id="20083252" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Medical-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Medical Association" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Indian Medical Association">Indian Medical Association</keyword> (IMA), the petitioner in the Patanjali advertisements case, to "put its house in order". It said several complaints have been made about alleged unethical acts by members of the IMA who prescribe highly expensive medicines and line of treatment. The bench also ordered impleading the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a respondent in the matter for effective assistance to the court. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd managing director Balkrishna, told the bench they have issued on Monday unqualified apology for the "lapses" on their part. "Where? Why it is not filed?" the bench asked. Rohatgi said it was issued on Monday in 67 newspapers across the country. When the court asked the senior advocate why did the respondents wait for a whole week before publishing the public apology, Rohatgi said, "Its language had to be changed". The court also quizzed him about the size of advertisements. "Is it the same size of advertisements that you normally issue in newspapers?" it asked Rohatgi, who submitted "It costs tens of lakhs (of rupees)". The bench ordered that the apology published be filed on record and added it wanted to see the actual advertisement published in newspapers. "The said advertisements are not on record. It is submitted that the same have been collated and shall be filed in the course of the day with copies to counsel for the parties. Needful shall be done within two days with copies to counsel for the parties," it said. The counsel said additional advertisement shall be issued by Ramdev and Balkrishna tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part. The bench said it was necessary to implead the three central ministries in order to examine the steps taken to prevent the abuse of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act. It said these ministries shall file affidavits enunciating the action they have taken to prevent the misuse/abuse of these statutes along with the relevant data since 2018. The bench said licencing authorities of all states and UTs shall also be impleaded as co-respondents in the matter. The bench told the IMA's counsel that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali, "the other four fingers are also pointing at you (IMA)". On April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank">Google Pixel 8a may be more expensive than its predecessor, as per a new leak</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank">Best smartphones under ₹25,000 in India</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank">At 17, Indian chess prodigy D Gukesh becomes youngest challenger for World Championship</a>

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A 10-year-old's death was blamed on a "blackout challenge" seen on TikTok.</li><li>In a recent ruling, the Third Circuit court determined TikTok could be held liable for her death.</li></ul>A 10-year-old child's tragic death, after her parents alleged in a lawsuit that she participated in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mother-warns-about-blackout-challenge-after-daughter-death-2021-12">"blackout challenge"</a> served to her on her TikTok "For You Page," could change the internet as we know it.In a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25107000-third-circuit-section-230-tiktok-decision">decision</a> on August 27, the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that, in 2021, TikTok — via its <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-tiktok-algorithm-for-you-page-works-watch-time-report-2021-7">"For You Page" algorithm</a> — recommended a video promoting a "blackout challenge" to 10-year-old Nylah Anderson."Nylah, still in the first year of her adolescence, likely had no idea what she was doing or that following along with the images on her screen would kill her," Third Circut Judge Paul Matey wrote in his concurring opinion. "But TikTok knew that Nylah would watch because the company's customized algorithm placed the videos on her 'For You Page.'"The challenge encouraged viewers to choke themselves until they passed out. In a 2022 suit filed against TikTok, attorneys for her parents said Nylah tragically died when she attempted to replicate what she saw. The case was initially dismissed by a district judge due to Section 230. The Third Circuit, however, found that TikTok's algorithm, which tailors content recommendations to specific users based on the posts they interact with, is a form of speech — one that isn't protected by Section 230.The company had argued in court that it was immune from prosecution due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-section-230-internet-law-communications-decency-act-explained-2020-5">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, often called the law that created the internet, shields online platforms like TikTok, Meta, X, and others from being held liable for content posted by users of their sites.That means, for example, if a user posted a video encouraging viewers to hurt themselves, the platform they posted the clip to couldn't be held liable if a susceptible viewer followed that suggestion. But the Third Circuit ruling could change that.<h2 id="86fdd06d-047e-47e7-85f5-00a1081ed168">Proponents of the ruling say it's about time</h2>"Imagine that a person walked up to Nylah at school and suggested that she asphyxiate herself. We'd immediately recognize the person's culpability," David French, a columnist and former attorney, wrote in a recent opinion piece for <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://archive.ph/NRPwy#selection-4807.0-4810.0">The New York Times</a>. "Arguably, the algorithmic suggestion is even more powerful than an in-person suggestion."French and other supporters of the Third Circuit ruling argue that TikTok's liability protections should end where its algorithmic suggestions begin.Neutrally hosting a wide array of content on an online platform is fine, French and other proponents say, but promoting specific content — especially content the site administrators know could be harmful — is where a new line needs to be drawn, and the platforms themselves need to be held legally accountable, as the Third Circuit ruled.<h2 id="108dc6d1-8678-4113-ad8d-8ff0ed1ea524">Section 230 defenders argue the ruling is a blow to free speech</h2>Opponents of the ruling argue that critics of Section 230 are using Anderson's tragic death and the reasonable desire to protect children online as a way to erode speech rights."It's a myth — these laws that claim to protect children," Betsy Rosenblatt, the associate director of Case Western University's Spangenberg Center for Law, Technology &amp; the Arts, told Business Insider. "They all wear the costume of child protection, but they are not child protection underneath that — they are attempts to silence speech."Rosenblatt said the Third Circuit's decision doesn't make logical or legal sense. It's morally reprehensible to suggest in a video a child choke themselves for engagement online — but it isn't illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal for the host of the video to show it on your "For You Page.""The more you require platforms to filter speech, the more platforms will have to delete first and ask questions later," Rosenblatt told BI. "And that means that things that are controversial, the moment they face any challenge, will get taken down, even if they should stay up."<h2 id="b73b0075-18f8-4e9c-97a8-c7768718b5be">What's next?</h2>The Third Circuit's decision can be appealed by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ban-tiktok-movement-is-losing-momentum-among-americans-2024-9">TikTok</a>. If the company appeals, the case will then end up on the Supreme Court's desk, where the high court justices could choose to take up the case or let the Third Circuit ruling stand — which would force platforms like TikTok to reconsider <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-tiktok-is-changing-music-industry">how their algorithms function</a> to avoid liability in cases like Anderson's.Though the high court has so far shied away from defining the scope of Section 230, its conservative justices have previously signaled they're open to reconsidering the statute. If they do, their ruling could have even broader consequences than the Third Circuit ruling.Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented in July from the court's refusal to hear a case that would have revisited Section 230. The case stemmed from allegations that the Snapchat app has a design flaw that aids sexual predators, but lower courts found that the app's parent company was shielded by 230.And in a decision last term, SCOTUS also left a loophole open to holding platforms liable based on which country their headquarters are in. In Moody v. NetChoice, which determined a platform's algorithmic activity is a form of "expressive activity" and should be regulated like speech is, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that a foreign-owned social-media platform — like TikTok — may not have the same First Amendment protections that a US corporation does.Rosenblatt said that if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, the high court could agree with the Third Circuit that TikTok's algorithmic recommendations are a version of the site's speech. If they do, the question would then become whether the recommendation itself was negligent, which could carry legal consequences."That would still be terrible for business on the internet, but it wouldn't kill all websites," Rosenblatt said of upholding a more narrow reading of the Third Circuit ruling. But the potential for a broader reading, which could determine that any form of content moderation equals a conversion of user speech into a platform's speech, would "have devastating effects on the internet ecosystem and tech more generally."

You Searched For "Supreme Court Bar Association" and got 5 results

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

John L. Dorman

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

ANI

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

PTI

The Supreme Court may have a shot to strike down Section 230 after a child's death was blamed on a 'blackout challenge' seen on TikTok

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides