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

<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

New Delhi, Jan 4 () Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the flagship company of the Tata group, on Saturday said it has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the NCLAT that directed the reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as a director of the company.
In a filing to the stock exchanges, TCS said the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - vide its judgement on December 18, 2019 - had directed re-instatement of Mistry as director of the company for rest of the tenure.
"...the company, based on a legal opinion, has on January 3, 2020 filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (i) to set aside the said Judgement qua the company and (ii) in the interim stay on operation of the said judgement to the extent it relates to the company," it added.
In a major development, the NCLAT had restored Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Sons and ruled that appointment of N Chandrasekaran as the head of the holding company of salt-to-software conglomerate was illegal.
Subsequently, Tata Sons moved the Supreme Court against the December 18 order of the NCLAT reinstating Mistry as the company's chairman.
After that, Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata also filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to quash the company law appellate court order, saying the judgment was "wrong, erroneous and contrary to the record of the case".
His petition, however, is separate from the one filed by Tata Sons Ltd, the holding company of the USD 110 billion salt-to-software conglomerate, in the Supreme Court on Thursday. SR MKJ

Now, TCS moves Supreme Court against NCLAT Order reinstating Mistry as director

<ul><li>The Supreme Court today delivered a verdict on the decades-long Ayodhya dispute — Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. </li><li>The apex court, in a unanimous judgement, gave the land to a government trust which will aid the construction of a <keyword id="42499" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ram-Mandir">Ram Mandir</keyword>. The Waqf board was allotted five acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya. </li><li><keyword id="46425" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Anand-Mahindra">Anand Mahindra</keyword>, chairman of Mahindra Group took to twitter to applaud the ‘process of justice.’ </li><li>Former CFO of Infosys, Mohandas Pai welcomed the historic judgement calling it a ‘justice to India, Indians, our constitution and Hindus’. </li></ul>The Supreme Court today delivered a verdict on the historic dispute on Ram Mandir, <keyword id="43572" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> and Ayodhya. The apex court, in a unanimous judgement, allotted the land to a government trust which will oversee the construction of a Ram mandir on the disputed land. The Waqf board was allotted five acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya. Within the next three months, the centre will appoint board of trustees and the 2.77-acre complex will be handed over to the trust. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the <keyword id="399476" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya-verdict">Ayodhya verdict</keyword> said that the verdict will reaffirm the independence, transparency and far-sightedness of the judiciary. Political and corporate leaders alike welcomed the decision. Anand Mahindra, Chairman, Mahindra Group took to Twitter to applaud the ‘process of justice’. “What extraordinary courage it required to be on this bench &amp; what incredible application of mind it must have taken to reach a conclusion,” he tweeted. <div type="twitter" handle="anandmahindra" handlename="anand mahindra" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1053583782584807425/-7IRmY5u_normal.jpg" favoritecount="15679" retweetcount="2352" status="5 men. A decision that 1.3bn people were awaiting. What extraordinary courage it required to be on this bench &amp; wha… https://t.co/hzNJ4npKZu" createdat="1573282376000" id="1193058875370426368"></div>

 Former director of Infosys Mohandas Pai welcomed the historic judgement calling it a “justice to India, Indians, our constitution and Hindus. The sword in the heart of Indian civilization has been removed!” <div type="twitter" handle="TVMohandasPai" handlename="Mohandas Pai" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/563397282020618240/BsxVmVtk_normal.jpeg" favoritecount="4123" retweetcount="1002" status="SC has done justice to India,Indians, our constitution and Hindus:The sword in heart of Indian civilization has bee… https://t.co/22MM94x8F2" createdat="1573278751000" id="1193043671970504704"></div>

 Indian author Chetan Bhagat thanked the Supreme Court and the Hindu-Muslim communities for their patience. “Thank you SC. Thank you to the entire Muslim community for your grace and generosity. Thank you to the Hindu community for their patience. India remains intact, as does the birthplace of Ram. Jai Shri Ram,” he tweeted. <div type="twitter" handle="chetan_bhagat" handlename="Chetan Bhagat" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1029242665705992192/nQqnqCUG_normal.jpg" favoritecount="11611" retweetcount="1164" status="Thank you SC. Thank you to the entire Muslim community for your grace and generosity. Thank you to the Hindu commun… https://t.co/duH54UT3uj" createdat="1573282050000" id="1193057507352072193"></div>
 Photographer and producer Atul Kasbekar’s reaction was rhetoric. “I hope that as the very famous AK once famously said, ‘All izz well’” he said. <div type="twitter" handle="atulkasbekar" handlename="atul kasbekar" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1157383172436430849/pE8z0HR3_normal.jpg" favoritecount="148" retweetcount="6" status="Chalo it’s done Move along now everyone And for my country’s sake, I hope that as the very famous AK once famousl… https://t.co/pqTcYvfp1O" createdat="1573279757000" id="1193047890605879297"></div>

All the celebrities who have welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute

<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

New Delhi, Feb 14 () Bharti Airtel on Friday offered the Department of Telecom to pay Rs 10,000 crore by February 20 and the rest of the dues before the next date of hearing on the adjusted gross revenue case in the Supreme Court. After facing ire of the Supreme Court, the Department of Telecom on Friday directed all telecom operators to clear their dues by the end of the day."Nevertheless, in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their direction today, we shall deposit a sum of Rs 10,000 crore (on account) by 20th February, 2020, on behalf of the Bharti Group companies," Airtel said in a letter to Member (Finance) at the DoT. Airtel owes nearly Rs 35,586 crore, including licence fee and spectrum usage charge, to the government. Airtel said that as directed by the Member (Finance), the company is in the process of completing the self assessment exercises. "You will appreciate this is a complicated process, covering 22 circles, multiple licenses and a substantial period of time and hence, is time consuming," the letter said.Telecom operators were required to clear their dues by January 23 as per the apex court judgement of October 24, 2019 in the matter. The top court of the country has directed the managing directors and directors of telcos and other firms to explain why contempt action be not taken against them for non-compliance of its order to pay adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of Rs 1.47 lakh crore to the Department of Telecommunications. PRS MRMR

Airtel offers to pay Rs 10,000 cr by Feb 20, rest before next court hearing date

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <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>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible.

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

New Delhi, Mar 4 () Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Wednesday said she will go through the Supreme Court order allowing banks and financial institutions to provide services related to cryptocurrencies. The apex court on Wednesday set aside an RBI circular of 2018 which had prohibited financial sector entities from providing services to any individual or business dealing in virtual currencies. "I will have to go through the apex court order and then will probably meet you all to see what we want to do or how we look at the judgement," the minister said at a press briefing here. She was responding to questions regarding government's stand on cryptocurrencies in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's judgement. Cryptocurrencies are digital or virtual currencies in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of their units and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank.Last year, an inter-ministerial committee had suggested banning of private cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, and criminalising any activities related to virtual currencies. Regarding the panel's report, Sitharaman said the ministry had not taken a decision on it. The Reserve Bank had through public notices on December 24, 2013, February 1, 2017 and December 5, 2017, cautioned users, holders and traders of virtual currencies, including bitcoins, regarding various risks associated in dealing with such virtual currencies. NKD CS ABMABM

Will go through SC order on cryptocurrency: FM Sitharaman

New Delhi, Jan 1 () Whos who of the corporate world - from Reliance to Tatas to ArcelorMittal - were in corporate law court but what took the cake was the NCLAT order reinstating the ousted Tata Sons head Cyrus Mistry as it shocked as well as shook the entire business world.
 Though the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) passed several orders/judgments in the insolvency and corporate matters in 2019 which include Tata-Mistry feud, Essar Steel, Jet Airways, IL&amp;FS, Jaypee Infratech, and Reliance Communications, several of them failed to pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and were either set aside or modified.
 While for 2020, NCLAT's calendar is marked with several important matters and would start the year with the government-controlled Registrar of Companies (RoC) plea to modify the order passed by it in the Tata-Mistry case, in which it had directed to change the status of Tata Sons from a private company to a public company, the holding firm of USD 110 billion empire.
 Besides, judgments are also expected from the appellate tribunal on other important matters which include the insolvency of Bhushan Power &amp; Steel Ltd in which JSW has challenged attachment of assets by the ED; resolution of IL&amp;FS group which has an outstanding debt of over Rs 90,000 crore; and McDonald's-Bakshi matter, where state-run HUDCO is opposing settlement offer by US-based QSR major.
 In the Essar Steel insolvency matter, the NCLAT in July this year while giving a final go ahead to the global steel giant ArcelorMittal for Rs 42,000 crore takeover of Ruia's firm had put all the operational creditors of the company almost at par with the secured financial creditors over the disbursement of funds.
 It had shaken the banking world as the appellate tribunal had altered the plan voted by Essar Steel's lenders and approved by NCLT Ahmedabad and was challenged before the Supreme Court.
 The apex court on November 15, not only upheld the primacy of financial creditors in the distribution of funds received under the corporate insolvency scheme but also ruled that the CoC would have a final say in the resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
 In August, the NCLAT ordered for liquidation of auto component maker Amtek Auto declining its lenders plea for extension of the insolvency resolution process deadline.
 This was challenged by the lenders before the Supreme Court, which last month directed the resolution professional to invite fresh bids for the auto component maker within 30 days.
 In another case, the NCLAT in November rejected the bid of Dhanuka Laboratories for Orchid Pharma and set aside the approval granted by the Chennai-bench of the NCLT.
 The NCLAT observed that the approved resolution value, which stood at Rs 1,146.04 crore, proposed by Dhanuka Laboratories was lower than the liquidation value of Rs 1,309 crore of the company. This was challenged by the CoC before the Supreme Court which granted a stay on the order last month.
 In July, the NCLAT permitted fresh bidding for the debt-laden Jaypee Infratech and extended the resolution period for another 90 days. However, in November the apex court annulled the order and allowed only two revised resolution plans from NBCC (India) Ltd and Suraksha Realty for voting.
 The apex court had directed to complete the resolution process of Jaypee Infratech, which is developing about 32,000 flats, in which it has delivered 9,500 units, in 90 days.
 The NCLAT order of January last directing initiation of insolvency proceedings against investment firm La-Fin Financial Services over the plea of IL&amp;FS Financial Services had similar outcome at the apex court. The order was set aside by the Supreme Court which held that IL&amp;FS Financial Services plea was beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and thus is time-barred and cannot be proceeded further.
 In 2019, some of the NCLAT orders also raised eyebrows. The order in case of Sterling Biotech was such a case. The appellate tribunal not only stayed the liquidation of the company but also directed to hand over the management to its promoters, including absconding Nitin Jayantilal Sandesara and Chetankumar Jayantilal Sandesara.
 The NCLAT also said that the Enforcement Directorate will probe and ascertain whether the money paid by the absconding promoters is not from the proceeds of crime.
 NCLAT Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya, who is going to hang his boots in March 2020 is also expected to pass the final judgment on fair trade regulator CCI's nod to Walmart's USD 16-billion acquisition of Flipkart.
 The appellate tribunal had reserved its order in January last over the plea filed by trade association CAIT challenging approval by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
 In October, the NCLAT gave its go-ahead to NCLT Mumbai to decide on Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd's bid for Dighi Port, however, it said that the outcome would be subject to its final order.
 In the same month, the appellate tribunal also rejected the oil ministry's plea seeking USD 314 million (around Rs 2,245 crore) from insolvency-bound Videocon Industries in unpaid profit petroleum from the Ravva oil and gas fields in the eastern offshore. KRH ANZ 
MR

2019: NCLAT passed several judgements but many of them failed Supreme Court perusal

New Delhi, Jan 10 () India's largest IT services firm Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) on Friday said the Supreme Court has stayed the NCLAT order that directed the reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as a director of the company.
Earlier this month, TCS had filed an appeal in Supreme Court to stay the NCLAT judgement dated December 18, which directed reinstatement of Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Director of the company for rest of the tenure.
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, vide its order dated January 10, 2020, granted a stay on the
operation of the said judgement and has posted the matter for detailed hearing at alater date," TCS said in a regulatory filing on Friday.
The Supreme Court has also stayed in toto the NCLAT order restoring Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group, observing that there were "lacunae" in the orders passed by the Tribunal.
 Meanwhile, in a separate filing, the Mumbai-based company has said it will announce its financial results for the December quarter on January 17. 
The company has set January 25 as record date for payment of the third interim dividend (if declared). 
TCS said its board will meet on January 17 to approve the audited financial results for the December 2019 quarter. 
The board will also consider declaration of a third interim dividend to the equity shareholders, it added. SR MKJ

TCS gets Supreme Court's stay on NCLAT order reinstating Mistry as director

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

<div class="image-container float_right"><div class="image">REUTERS/Anindito Mukherjee <keyword id="44775" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Gay-rights">Gay rights</keyword> activists wave flags and shout slogans as they attend a protest against a verdict by the Supreme Court in New Delhi on December 11, 2013. </div></div><keyword id="3658" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="India">India</keyword>'s government said Thursday it would look at ways to swiftly reverse a shock ruling which reinstated a ban on gay sex, accusing the Supreme Court of dragging the country back to the 19th century.
Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who doubles up as the government's chief spokesman, said gay rights legislation could be drawn up following Wednesday's verdict but warned that such a move would be time-consuming.
Law Minister Kapil Sabil pledged that the government would take "firm and quick action" to alter what he called an anachronistic law.
Gay sex had been effectively legalized in 2009 when the Delhi High Court ruled that a section of the penal code prohibiting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" was an infringement of fundamental rights.
But in a shock judgement on Wednesday, a panel of two Supreme Court judges ruled that the High Court had overstepped its authority and that a law passed in 1860 during British colonial rule was still valid.
"What we have done is go back in time to 1860 and I'm terribly disappointed," Chidambaram told the NDTV network.
"We must explore ways and means in which this judgement can be reversed very quickly. Legislation is one way to reverse it but that may take time.
"(While) not giving up that option of legislation, we must explore other ways and I am willing to sit with my colleagues to find out if there are other ways in which this judgement might be reversed."
Sibal confirmed that the government was considering its "options" to prevent millions of people being categorized as criminals.
"This is not a law that fits in with the times, you cannot have an antediluvian and anachronistic law like this," he told reporters.
"Time is of essence, we believe in taking quick action, the government believes in firm and quick action."
The ruling was met with dismay by gay rights activists who called it a "Black Day" for India while newspapers said the judgement was an embarrassing throwback.
"It brings a discriminatory law that was created over 150 years ago by our colonial masters. It deals a body blow to the very idea of individual choice," said The Times of India in a front-page editorial.
But the same paper also said politicians had only themselves to blame for leaving such an issue in the hands of the courts rather than address it through legislation.
"An amendment of 377 (the section of the code in question) is something Parliament should have done on its own a long time ago," it said.
Sonia Gandhi, leader of the main ruling Congress party, also urged parliament to bring in legislation.
"I hope that parliament will address this issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by this judgement," she said in a statement.
However the prospects of any gay rights laws being passed ahead of elections due next May look remote as Congress and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been at loggerheads for months.
Chidambaram proposed that the government seek a review of the judgement before a larger panel of senior judges, saying that judicial interpretation of law could not remain "static".
"I think the government should ask for a review or file a curative petition and ask that the matter be considered by a bench of five judges," he said.
"Today, in the year 2013.... to say that there is something like 'intercourse against the order of nature' and that is the social and moral value of today and that therefore should be the legal value of today is completely outdated, completely inappropriate," he added.
The judgement has been widely criticized outside India as well, including from the United States.
"We oppose any action that criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct between adults," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Wednesday.
Religious groups who opposed the 2009 repeal have hailed the reinstatement of the law, which is rarely invoked in practice.
Gay sex has long been a taboo subject in conservative India, where homophobic tendencies abound and many still regard being gay as a mental illness.
In recent years, the gay community in India has raised its profile through gay pride marches, magazines and events which have encouraged many to come out of the closet.
But the country still has no major openly-gay public figures in politics, entertainment or sport.
<div class="nc_footer">
Copyright (2013) AFP. All rights reserved.
</div>

India May Backtrack On The Gay Sex Ban After Global Outrage

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down rules in the amended <keyword id="4380581" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Act-2017">Finance Act 2017</keyword> on tribunals and directed the government to reformulate fresh norms with respect to appointment of tribunal members. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> directed the Ministry of law to conduct impact study and submit report to the apex court. The top court directed that appointment in tribunals should be in accordance with respective statutes.

You Searched For "all supreme court judgements" and got 13 results

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Prabhjote Gill

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Now, TCS moves Supreme Court against NCLAT Order reinstating Mistry as director

PTI

All the celebrities who have welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute

BI India Bureau

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

BI India Bureau

Airtel offers to pay Rs 10,000 cr by Feb 20, rest before next court hearing date

PTI

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

ANI

Will go through SC order on cryptocurrency: FM Sitharaman

PTI

2019: NCLAT passed several judgements but many of them failed Supreme Court perusal

PTI

TCS gets Supreme Court's stay on NCLAT order reinstating Mistry as director

PTI

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

BI India Bureau

India May Backtrack On The Gay Sex Ban After Global Outrage

Agence France Presse

SC strikes down Finance Act amendments and asks government to formulate fresh norms on tribunals

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides