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><li>The apex court proclaimed on Wednesday that it is of the view that “two consenting adults even if involved in ‘unnatural sex’, will not be liable for any kind of criminal action or prosecution”. </li><li>In 2009, the <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> passed a landmark decision wherein it ruled that the law could not be applied to consensual sex.</li><li>The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and reinstated the law in 2013. </li><li>This homosexuality law came into being in the 1860s when the British colonists introduced <keyword id="6362797" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="section-377">Section 377</keyword>. </li><li>UK decriminalised sexual activity between men over 50 years back, but, like India, many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malaysia, are yet to legalise homosexuality.</li></ul> The Indian gay community may soon be able to heave a collective sigh of relief after the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> strongly suggested yesterday (11 July) that it is leaning towards repealing a law that criminalises the act of <keyword id="45200" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Gay-sex">gay sex</keyword>. The court <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-on-verge-of-decriminalising-gay-sex-govt-leaves-it-to-wisdom-of-judges/articleshow/64953750.cms">proclaimed</a> that it is of the view that “two consenting adults even if involved in ‘unnatural sex’, will not be liable for any kind of criminal action or prosecution”. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India <keyword id="6355251" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> began hearing petitions challenging Section 377 of the <keyword id="75223" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Penal-Code">Indian Penal Code</keyword> that criminalising consensual gay sex filed by a group of gay and lesbian Indians on Tuesday (10 July). The hearing is slated to last around two weeks. This group of petitioners <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/world/asia/india-gay-decriminalization.html">includes</a> prominent individuals including businesswoman Ayesha Kapur, celebrity chef Ritu Dalmia, journalist Sunil Mehra and hotelier <keyword id="275421" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aman-Nath">Aman Nath</keyword>. In fact, this hearing will be quite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/10/indian-supreme-court-starts-hearing-on-decriminalising-gay-sex">different</a> from the earlier ones in the sense that some of these petitioners will actually get a chance to share with the court how this law has negatively affected their lives. Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta on Wednesday also handed over an affidavit by the Centre that clearly stated that the government has left the constitutional validity of the law to the “wisdom of the court”. This basically means the Centre will not challenge the court’s decision, whatever it may be. This homosexuality law came into being in the 1860s when the British colonists introduced Section 377. The law essentially states that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature” will be punished with imprisonment for life. 
 
 <div type="image" title="yannis-papanastasopoulos-327336-unsplash" msid="64964419" hostid="261"></div>



 Ironically, UK decriminalised sexual activity between men - the law never applied to women - over 50 years back in 1967. But, like India, many of its former <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03india.html">colonies</a>, including Singapore, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malaysia, are yet to legalise homosexuality. In 2009, the Delhi High Court passed a landmark decision wherein it ruled that the law could not be applied to consensual sex, but that decision was only valid in the territory of India’s capital city, Delhi. It did, however, raise the hopes of around <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/india-sex-relations-india-decriminalise-gay-sex-180710214650095.html">2.5 million Indians</a> who, according to government figures from 2012, identify themselves as gay. These hopes were subsequently crushed by the Supreme Court who reversed the High Court’s decision and reinstated the law in 2013 after various religious groups protested the decriminalisation. Then in <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-verdict-says-sexual-orientation-part-of-privacy-lgbt-community-celebrates/story-wk3PFmNK0G2tCpBK4GyjZK.html">August 2017</a>, another glimmer of hope was doled out by the Supreme Court who ruled that individual privacy is a “guaranteed fundamental right” and that “sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy.” By doing this it essentially reversed its own ruling against gay sex.

The Supreme Court of India is veering towards legalizing gay sex

<ul><li>The Supreme court in <keyword id="3658" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="India">India</keyword> has issued directives to political parties and candidates to give ‘wide publicity’ to any and all ongoing criminal allegations against them. </li><li>The court has also asked the parliament to bring in laws that allows for the removal of political leaders that are accused of committing ‘heinous and grievous’ crimes. </li><li>Earlier this year the central government had informed the supreme court that there were currently 3,045 pending cases against MPs and MLAs.</li></ul>India is in a precarious political situation where more than <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/36-of-mps-mlas-facing-trial-in-3045-criminal-cases/articleshow/63261553.cms">one-third</a> of its members of parliament (MPs) and members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) are currently facing trial, according to the <keyword id="2954047" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="NN-Vohra-Committee">NN Vohra Committee</keyword>. The <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cant-bar-politicians-with-criminal-charges-from-contesting-elections-parliament-should-frame-laws-sc/article25035435.ece">supreme court has instructed</a> candidates and political parties to disclose any and all pending criminal cases pending against them to the Election Commission (EC) at the time of nomination. And, the five-judge constitution bench of the supreme court held that political parties are obligated to publish the information about their respective websites so that voters can make an informed decision when they’re choose the candidate to vote for. That being said, the supreme court also added that only candidates who have been convicted will be disqualified from participating in the elections, not ones who have only been accused. Ironically. But for those who have been accused of ‘heinous and grievous’ crimes, the supreme court has urged the parliament to form laws that would enable the removal of such political leaders. Leaving no stone unturned To ensure that political parties and candidates can’t exploit any loophole of the directive, the supreme court has specifically detailed that the submissions to the EC have to be in ‘block letters’. And, in addition to making the information available online, the supreme court has also said that the political party has to give ‘wide publicity’ to these facts through declarations in the newspapers as well as over electronic media. After nomination papers have been filed, candidates have to publicise their respective criminal records on television, not once, but thrice. Criminalisation of politics at entry-level The study <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/criminalisation-of-politics-felt-in-strongest-form-in-1993-mumbai-serial-blasts-supreme-court/articleshow/65949574.cms">conducted</a> by NN Vohra committee found that India’s intelligence agencies such as RAW, CBI and IB unanimously agreed that there was a criminal network running parallel to the government of India. And, with the EC having limited powers, there’s nothing it can do about candidates entering the political race when they’ve only been accused of a crime, but are yet to be convicted. On average, in the 10 years following 2004, the <keyword id="6368295" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="law-commission">Law Commission</keyword> of India <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/1-every-14-lawmaker-had-694524.html">reported</a> that 18% of the candidates in state and national elections have had pending criminal cases against them. Even back in 1990, the Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms pointed out how money and muscle power were crippling the Indian electoral system. Ahead of the 2019 general elections, this may require parties to switch up their strategies since 1,765 MPs and MLAs of 4,896 are currently facing a criminal trial or the other. There are over 3,045 pending cases of crimes against women according to the an analysis done by the central government in collaboration with the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

Supreme court pushes for strong laws to decriminalise politics in India

The bankruptcy of Essar Steel had put India’s nascent bankruptcy laws to test and the final word on that is out. In its latest verdict, the Supreme Court of India has said that banks can decide how to distribute the $6 billion from the sale of the company to <keyword id="47654" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ArcelorMittal">ArcelorMittal</keyword>, a multinational steel giant owned by billionaire steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal. This verdict from the Supreme Court also said that the bankruptcy courts are free to relax the 330-day deadline set by the law to resolve insolvency cases. In an interview before the latest judgement from the Supreme Court, MS Sahoo, the Chairman of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, told Business Insider that India’s laws indeed have a tight deadline. “The focus is that the process should be completed in a time bound manner, and please note that no where in the world is there this kind of timeline,” Sahoo said in an exclusive interview. The entire transcript of the interview <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/economy/news/exclusive-interview-with-ms-sahoo-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-chairman/articleshow/72069548.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">here</a>. You can watch the entire interview here: 
 <div type="Video" msid="72073026" hostid="261" title="“Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline,” says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo" thumbUrl="https://denmark.timesinternet.in/cmslite/api/app/images.jpg?msid=72073026"></div>

Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline, says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo

<keyword id="6354756" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, had claimed to act as an association, but the claim has been rejected by the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword>. It added that the board, which is a monopoly holding full sway over the game of cricket, can’t at the same time claim the right to be a free private association under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution with no concomitant obligations. 
 
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifullah said that the BCCI and its member associations should fall in line with the recommendations made by Justice Lodha committee. 
 
However, on behalf of member associations of the BCCI, advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind P Datar have opposed the idea of one association, one vote, as was proposed by the Lodha panel. 
 
"You are discharging a public duty. In doing so, can you discriminate? You have full sway over cricket in the country. You also seem to have some kind of state patronage, otherwise the state would have regulated you," Justice Thakur said. 
 
The CJI had said this after Datar had argued for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association's right to conduct its own affairs, acting as a free association. 
 
"No one can play cricket without being on the BCCI's right hand side. You have a monopoly. You also have a full sway over membership," Justice Thakur said. 
 
He said, "You are not giving up this right to control cricket. You are insisting that you can select team India, the Ranji teams. In that case can you say I will only associate with one body and not the other? Can you say I will take in one association and not the other? You have to let everyone in and give them equal opportunities." 
 
The CJI also added that the Lodha panel measures don’t suggest any restriction of the rights of the BCCI or its member associations, but in fact, they were only proposals to open up membership to more regions and people. 
 
"Cricket is a game of glamour. Every other youngster is aspiring to become Dhonis and Kohlis. The associations must also fall in line and accept these reforms," he said. 
 
Moreover, the CJI added that even the International Cricket Council had a one nation, one vote policy. "Sri Lanka is just the half of Delhi. Don't you think in ICC regardless of population, different countries have one vote? If it can work with the international body can't it work for BCCI?" he said. 
 
<a href="http://www.clipper28.com/images/Sep_2015/24-09-2015/sc-or-bcci.jpg">Image source</a>

BCCI can’t claim to act as an association, says the Supreme Court of India

<keyword id="7160701" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-year-2018">The year 2018</keyword> saw the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> pass some pivotal judgements that have borne in favour of equality. Under the umbrella of Justice Dipak Misra, the judgements have sparked debate, joy and also anger. The Supreme Court verdict on decriminalising homosexuality allowing the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple in the year 2018, while appreciated, were also judgements that were widely debated. The controversy surrounding the Aadhaar Act was also put to rest with Sections 33(2), 47 and 57 being struck down. The primary concern of citizens was abated with private entities no longer being allowed to demand Aadhaar data and the national security exception being revoked. Here are the some of the major verdicts passed down by the <keyword id="7160700" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-in-the-year-2018">Supreme Court in the year 2018</keyword>:

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

<ul><li><keyword id="3658" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="India">India</keyword>’s apex court passed a verdict to restrict the use of firecrackers in lieu of the worsening <keyword id="53848" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="air-quality">air quality</keyword> in the country. </li><li>Along with time constraints on when firecrackers can be used, the Supreme Court is only allowing the sale of ‘<keyword id="6981349" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="green-fireworks">Green Fireworks</keyword>’. </li><li>While consumers cite tradition and religion, companies are wary of how this decision will affect their bottom line. </li><li>On the contrary, environmentalists feel that this barely enough to contain the excessive air pollution that occurs during the festive season of <keyword id="188" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="Diwali">Diwali</keyword>.</li></ul>India’s national capital is no stranger to air pollution, especially when it’s festive season. Deepavali, the Hindu festival of lights, is particularly an issue because it involves using firecrackers which not only depreciate the air quality, but cause noise pollution as well. The <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword>, the country’s highest constitutional court, has deemed that while firecrackers won’t be banned altogether, strict restrictions are going to be put in place so people’s right to health isn’t adversely affected. This includes restricting when firecrackers can be burst, the implementation of ‘Green Crackers’ and banning online sales to curb the ill effects. Timely firecrackers One of the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s judgement is that bursting of firecrackers will only be allowed between 8pm and 10pm on the day of Diwali. But, they haven’t put any reprimands in place if the decision isn’t followed. Traditionally, firecrackers aren’t only burst on Diwali but the day before and the day after as well. The day before, because it is Chotti Diwali (small Diwali) and the day after, because people want to use up the firecrackers that are leftover from the night before. While the time restriction is commendable, it’s unlikely to be enforced efficiently if there is no fear of consequences. 
	<div type="twitter" handle="OruvanYavano" handlename="Yavano Oruvan" image="http://abs.twimg.com/sticky/default_profile_images/default_profile_normal.png" favoritecount="2" retweetcount="0" status="Diwali is our traditional festival we don't need your suggestion to blast crakers #firecrackers #savediwali #saveourtradition" createdat="1540283144000" id="1054650065720008706"></div>



 
	<div type="twitter" handle="idontfaqwithu" handlename="rOhaN 🍌" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1019607935360512000/NrEMBz1Y_normal.jpg" favoritecount="6" retweetcount="0" status="Fuck supreme court. I'll burst crackers morning and evening on the day of diwali. Stop targeting our 1000s of year… https://t.co/MykMj8R6nv" createdat="1540283204000" id="1054650314375127040"></div>



 
	<div type="twitter" handle="rajat0807" handlename="Rajat Dariya" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/506866519372869632/Oz-ZCXJ6_normal.jpeg" favoritecount="2" retweetcount="1" status="It's not for #SupremeCourt to decide whether to ban #FireCrackers or not. We'll celebrate our festival the way we w… https://t.co/wdXjL5eti1" createdat="1540282277000" id="1054646429900259328"></div>



 Companies cry foul Most companies that have been disagreeing with the verdict have cited adverse economic and financial losses. But the Supreme Court has reinforced its stance stating that the economic loss in the form of treating respiratory ailments and health hazards resulting from firecrackers is much greater. Consumers and e-commerce companies, alike, aren’t too happy about the fact that firecrackers can’t be sold online anymore. Even the traditional Cock Brand Crackers and Sri Kaliswari Fireworks are going to be subject to restricting their inventory. The Supreme Court has mandated that ‘Green Crackers’ or fireworks that adhere to lower emissions will be the only ones allowed in the market now. While this may be a step in the right direction, environmentalists feel that it’s not nearly enough. Vimlendu Jha says that there’s really no such thing as an ‘environmentally safe’ <keyword id="6356460" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="firecracker">firecracker</keyword>. 
	<div type="twitter" handle="vimlendu" handlename="Vimlendu Jha" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/293375517/Vimlendu_MW_low_res_normal.jpg" favoritecount="15" retweetcount="7" status="What the hell does a 'good' firecracker even mean? Despite every scientific data available at the Courts disposal,… https://t.co/0Eamoh59Ve" createdat="1540292760000" id="1054690396452737024"></div>

India has sights set on banning firecrackers, bringing in 'Green Fireworks' – here's why it probably won't work

New Delhi, Industry body IAMAI on Friday "advised" <keyword id="19902762" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="google" source="keywords">Google</keyword> not to delist any apps from Google <keyword id="20163860" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="play" source="keywords">Play</keyword>, after the tech titan sent out a clear warning that it will remove apps not complying with Play store billing policies. Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) confirmed that at least four of its members have received notices from Google. In a statement, IAMAI advised Google not to delist any apps from Google Play. "The affected members of IAMAI are of the view that a substantive hearing of the case is pending before the <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword>, and Google should not take any coercive action during the pendency of the case," IAMAI said. Google on Friday said a clutch of companies, including well-established ones, continue to flout its billing norms, choosing not to pay Play store service fee applicable on sale of in-app digital goods, and warned that it will not hesitate to take necessary action to enforce policies, including removal of such non-compliant apps from Google Play. Amid a warcry over Google Play billing policy by some prominent Indian startups and the recent launch of <keyword id="20522402" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="indus-appstore" source="keywords">Indus Appstore</keyword>, the Made-in-India app market challenger, Google in a blogpost asserted that allowing a small group of developers to get differential treatment from the vast majority of developers who are paying their fair share creates an uneven playing field putting all other apps and games at a competitive disadvantage. "After giving these developers more than three years to prepare, including three weeks after the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword>'s order, we are taking necessary steps to ensure our policies are applied consistently across the ecosystem, as we do for any form of policy violation globally," Google said in its blogpost. It went on to say that enforcement of the policy, when necessary, can include removal of non-compliant apps from Google Play. Google, however, added that existing users will be able to continue to access the apps without interruption and that it continues "to offer our support to help developers get into compliance". Developers, Google said, are welcome to resubmit their apps to be listed on Play by opting for one of the three billing options as part of its payment policy. "Today, we have over 2,00,000 Indian developers using Google Play who adhere to our policies, helping us ensure we have a safe platform; however, for an extended period of time, 10 companies, including many well-established ones, have chosen to not pay for the immense value they receive on Google Play by securing interim protections from the court," Google had said.

IAMAI asks Google not to delist apps from Play store, says 4 members got notices

<ul><li>Give Muslims another site for a mosque, the Supreme Court ordered quashing the division of land by the Allahabad High Court.</li><li>This is a historic judgement from the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir (temple) - Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute being fought in courts at least since 1885.</li><li>The central government has been vested with the disputed land and to come up with a scheme for the construction of a temple in Ayodhya.</li><li>The Muslims should be given a separate 5-acre site for the construction of a mosque, the SC ordered while calling the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law.</li></ul>In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ordered that Muslims be given a separate 5-acre site to build a mosque, while holding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law. At the same time, Justice Gogoi, while reading out a unanimous verdict, ordered that the Hindus will get to construct a Ram Mandir (temple) at the disputed site in Ayodhya, which the Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice Abdul Nazeer read out a unanimous verdict in the Ram Mandir (temple)- Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute that has lasted for centuries, and being fought in the courts since 1885. The verdict is expected to settle the issue that has shaped India's politics for nearly 30 years now. <div type="Youtube" id="YB8rCj6W2ks" title="Here are the top highlights from the Ayodhya verdict." thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YB8rCj6W2ks/mqdefault.jpg"></div>

 These are the key highlights of the order being read out: 1. Hindus get the possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram temple. Possession of disputed 2.77 acre land will remain with Central government receiver. SC asks centre to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple. 2. Alternate land should be allotted to the Muslims for a mosque. The Allahabad High Court was wrong in dividing the disputed Ayodhya site into three parts. 3. The government has to set up a trust that will enforce the Court's judgement. 4. Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama) is not a juristic person and therefore filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation. However, the Akhara that has sought the management rights to the temple may get adequate representation going forward, if the government deems fit. 5. The report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), which cited the presence of a tenth-century structure beneath the Babri Masjid, has been upheld. But the court highlighted the fact that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. Today, the Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court verdict, which divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram-- the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary)-- and the Sunni Waqf Board. All three parties moved the Supreme Court against the order. Reaction of the Muslim side The Muslim side has expressed its displeasure with the Supreme Court verdict. While they agree with the parts of the verdict, they disagree with the handing over of the disputed site to the Hindus. Zafaryab Jilani, a litigant from the Muslim side, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, said that the verdict is "neither justice nor equity". "We are not satisfied with the judgement and the court has reached some wrong conclusions. We will go through the judgement to decide the future course of action... but SC verdict has to be respected. Everyone must remain calm," Jilani said adding that they are yet to decide whether they will move a review petition. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/people-prepare-for-supreme-court-verdict-in-the-ayodhya-case-in-pictures/articleshow/71979301.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/why-the-supreme-court-verdict-on-the-ayodhya-dispute-is-being-delivered-on-a-saturday/articleshow/71979382.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Here's why the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute is being delivered on a Saturday</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-legal-rights-of-lord-rama-and-other-gods/articleshow/71948927.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">In India, Gods, rivers, and animals can pay taxes, hold property, sue, and get sued⁠— and that’s an important factor in the Ayodhya case</a>

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

<ul><li>India’s Supreme Court has given the government until January 15 to lay out the rules and regulations for social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. </li><li>The Supreme Court has also pulled in petitions related to social networks that were pending with various high courts. </li><li>It has promised to resolve the pending cases by the end of January. </li></ul>Hate speech and fake news are extremely common across social media in India. To deal with this menace, Indian Supreme Court has asked the government to come out with new rules and regulations by 15 January 2020. The bench, headed by Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, also directed all pending cases pertaining to social media filed with various high courts to be transferred to the Supreme Court. There are four petitions in the fray. Two filed with the Madras High Court, one with the Madhya Pradesh High Court and another with the Bombay High Court. The primary issue at the helm was the linking of Aadhaar cards with social networks and WhatsApp-- which is pending with the Madras High Court. The petition filed by Facebook argues that disclosure of Aadhaar details will infringe user privacy. The bench also clarified that India’s Information Technology Act allows the government to ask for decryption of data. At the same time, it does not allow the government to force intermediaries to decrypt the data. It added that while national interest is important, it must be balanced against privacy.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp will be regulated in India — come January 15

<ul><li>The Supreme Court of <keyword id="3658" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="India">India</keyword> lifted the ban imposed on setting up a dance bar in <keyword id="13126" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Maharashtra">Maharashtra</keyword> today. </li><li>It also ruled against other proposed restrictions like the installation of cameras inside the bar. </li><li>The decision came in when a petition challenged the strict norms levied by state government that made it almost impossible to set up and run a dance bar in Maharashtra. </li></ul>The ban on <keyword id="94250" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dance-bars">dance bars</keyword> in India’s financial capital has been lifted by the country’s Supreme Court. The government of Maharashtra can regulate these bars but cannot fully prohibit them, the court said in its verdict. The court ruling also overturned installation of cameras inside the bars as it invades privacy. The Supreme Court has also removed the mandatory condition of dance bars to be one kilometer away from religious places or school citing it ‘unreasonable’ for <keyword id="6358070" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="mumbai">Mumbai</keyword>. In 2018, some of the dance bars in Maharashtra that were already carrying out business were exempted from certain clauses of the new law imposed by the state government.The top court said the laws were ‘weird and ridiculous’. Mumbai has a long history of ‘dance bars’ — bars that had women entertaining guests with private or group dancing in exchange for tips. However, these were banned in 2005 by the state government, mostly on moral grounds, but was later struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2013. However, the then Congress government brought an ordinance to implement the ban. Today’s verdict from the SC allows aspiring dance bar operators to procure a licence from the state government and operate under stricter regulations. While the government took a <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/maharashtra-dance-bar-sc-142189">moral high ground</a> on the debate over dance bars, a union of the dancers, called the 'Bharatiya Bargirls Union’ complained that the ban was not amoral or hurting their dignity, it only took away a source of livelihood. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/miscellaneous/10-landmark-judgements-indias-supreme-court-passed-in-2018/slidelist/67254190.cms">10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-landmark-supreme-court-verdict-on-reservation-quotas-for-job-promotions/articleshow/65981169.cms">All you need to know about the landmark Supreme Court verdict on reservation quotas for job promotions</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/supreme-court-of-india-lifts-ban-women-of-all-ages-can-now-enter-sabarimala-temple/articleshow/65993339.cms">Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple</a>

Mumbai can have dance bars again but conditions apply

In a landmark judgement, the <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court of India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court of India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has broadened the definition of crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court ruled that simply viewing <keyword id="20456028" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="child-pornography" source="keywords">child pornography</keyword> on the internet, without physically possessing or storing the material, is now a criminal offence under Section 15 of the <keyword id="19920672" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="POCSO-Act" source="keywords">POCSO Act</keyword> and provisions of the <keyword id="19930099" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="information-technology" source="keywords">Information Technology</keyword> (IT) Act. This ruling significantly expands the scope of the law to address the evolving challenges posed by digital platforms. <h2>A wider net</h2>In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated, "Any act of viewing, distributing, or displaying child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to 'possession' in terms of Section 15 of POCSO Act." This interpretation effectively settled conflicting verdicts from various high courts, notably overturning a Madras High Court decision that had quashed a POCSO case against an individual who had viewed child pornography but had not circulated it. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with senior advocate H.S. Phoolka's arguments, deemed the earlier judgement "egregiously erroneous." <h2>Crimes categorised</h2>In a further clarification, the Supreme Court divided crimes related to child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act into three distinct categories. The decision emphasised that law enforcement and courts must carefully assess each case to determine the specific category under which an offence falls. One critical insight from the judgement is that an offender cannot escape prosecution by simply deleting illegal content before an FIR is registered. The bench declared, "We clarify that there is no requirement under Section 15 of POCSO Act that ‘storage’ or ‘possession’ must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding, and no such requirement can be read into the said provision." <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417654" title="“Learned no lessons from Nirbhaya case”: Madhya Pradesh High Court criticises lenient treatment of crime-accused juvies in India" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>This means that even if an individual deletes the material before the authorities take action, they may still face <keyword id="20554971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="legal-consequences" source="keywords">legal consequences</keyword> based on the mere act of viewing or temporary possession. <h2><keyword id="23293250" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="automatic-downloads" source="keywords">Automatic downloads</keyword></h2>Acknowledging the complexities of <keyword id="20573374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="digital-media" source="keywords">digital media</keyword>, the Supreme Court recognised that certain child pornographic content might be automatically downloaded onto devices without the user’s knowledge. To address this, the court created a safeguard for those unaware of the offensive material stored on their devices. If a person discovers such material on their device through automatic downloads, they will not be prosecuted if they take immediate steps to delete it and report it to the authorities. However, the onus is on the device owner to act swiftly. Failure to delete or report the offensive material after becoming aware of it would constitute an offence under the law. To avoid the automatic downloading of problematic material, there are several proactive measures you can take. First, adjust your browser settings to disable automatic downloads and pop-ups, ensuring you have to approve any file before it is downloaded to your device. Regularly update your web browser and security software to benefit from the latest protections against malicious websites. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113146443" title="Karnataka HC rejects school teacher&amp;#39;s plea to quash POCSO case over filming of girl students" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Additionally, be cautious about the sites you visit, particularly those that seem suspicious or unfamiliar; stick to well-known, reputable sources. Additionally, consider using ad blockers or content filters that can prevent potentially harmful content from loading. Always be mindful of any unsolicited links in emails or messages, as these can lead to automatic downloads of unwanted material. Lastly, routinely monitor your device for any unfamiliar files and promptly delete anything that looks suspicious to minimise your risk of unknowingly storing problematic content. <h2>What this means for the future</h2>This judgement sends a clear message: India is taking a zero-tolerance approach toward child pornography in all its forms, whether stored, distributed, or merely viewed. The ruling adapts the legal framework to modern challenges, ensuring that perpetrators can no longer hide behind technicalities such as the absence of physical possession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation also places a burden on individuals to exercise responsibility in the digital world. Anyone who stumbles upon child pornography, whether intentionally or accidentally, must take swift action to avoid legal consequences. (With inputs from agencies)

You Searched For "Supreme Court in India" and got 11 results

The Supreme Court of India is veering towards legalizing gay sex

Kavita Majumdar

Supreme court pushes for strong laws to decriminalise politics in India

Prabhjote Gill

Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline, says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo

Sriram Iyer

BCCI can’t claim to act as an association, says the Supreme Court of India

BI India Bureau

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Prabhjote Gill

India has sights set on banning firecrackers, bringing in 'Green Fireworks' – here's why it probably won't work

Prabhjote Gill

IAMAI asks Google not to delist apps from Play store, says 4 members got notices

PTI

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp will be regulated in India — come January 15

Prabhjote Gill

Mumbai can have dance bars again but conditions apply

Sriram Iyer

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides