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

In a recent <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> decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala raised a red flag regarding <keyword id="23574724" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-6A" source="keywords">Section 6A</keyword> of the <keyword id="20932920" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Citizenship-Act" source="keywords">Citizenship Act</keyword> of 1955, a provision that grants citizenship to immigrants who entered <keyword id="19911206" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="assam" source="keywords">Assam</keyword> between 1966 and 1971. While the majority ruling upheld Section 6A as constitutional, <keyword id="23584391" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Pardiwala" source="keywords">Justice Pardiwala</keyword>’s dissenting opinion suggests that the provision is both arbitrary and prone to abuse. Here’s what you need to know: <h2>What is Section 6A?</h2>Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985, following the <keyword id="20000897" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assam-Accord" source="keywords">Assam Accord</keyword>, a historic agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of <keyword id="19959299" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-immigration" source="keywords">illegal immigration</keyword> in Assam. Under this section, people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for citizenship if they meet certain residency requirements. <h2>Why does Justice Pardiwala think Section 6A is unconstitutional?</h2>Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A is problematic because of its “open-ended nature,” which lacks a clear deadline for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. He emphasised that the provision makes it easier for individuals to exploit the system using forged documents. “The open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse due to the advent of forged documents,” he wrote, adding that such documents often provide false dates of entry or inaccurate family histories. Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A has become “arbitrary and constitutionally invalid” over time. He believes the lack of a specific timeline for detecting immigrants allows for prolonged misuse, as it gives people an indefinite period to remain in Assam and potentially establish citizenship claims based on falsified information. He further explained that government records deteriorate over time, making it harder to verify or disprove these claims accurately. <h2>What did the majority ruling say?</h2>In contrast to Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A. The court ruled that the Assam Accord was intended as a political solution, and the section remains a valid legal mechanism to address Assam’s historical challenges with illegal immigration. This decision was celebrated by the All Assam Students Union (<keyword id="20938945" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AASU" source="keywords">AASU</keyword>), who consider the verdict a “historic” validation of the Assam Accord’s original intent. Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and petitioner in the case, expressed disappointment with the verdict, calling it “unfortunate.” Rahman, who has long advocated for using 1951 rather than 1971 as the cut-off year for citizenship eligibility, argued that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of Assam’s indigenous population. “You can’t make Assam a dumping ground for illegal immigrants,” he remarked, suggesting that his organisation may continue to explore legal options to challenge the decision. Justice Pardiwala’s dissent sheds light on ongoing concerns about immigration laws and their long-term effects on local communities in Assam. While the majority ruling supports Section 6A, Pardiwala’s warning raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of India’s approach to citizenship, as well as the broader implications for Assam’s demographic and political landscape. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

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> agreed to hear on Friday a plea seeking <keyword id="20286748" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="postponement" source="keywords">postponement</keyword> of the <keyword id="22147879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NEET-PG" source="keywords">NEET-PG</keyword> examination, scheduled for August 11, which claimed that candidates have been allocated cities that are highly inconvenient for them to reach. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on Thursday took note of the submissions of lawyer Anas Tanwir on the issue. The bench said the matter will be listed on Friday. The plea said many candidates have been allocated cities which are highly inconvenient for them to reach. It said the test cities were allotted on July 31 and the specific centres will be declared on August 8. While the allocation of the centres was done to curb malpractices, the plea said due to the paucity of time, it is difficult for the candidates to make arrangements for travel to specific cities. "Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus ...the Respondents (<keyword id="19904021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Testing-Agency" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Testing Agency" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="National Testing Agency">National Testing Agency</keyword>) to reschedule the NEET-PG 2024 examination," stated the plea filed by Vishal Soren. The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-Postgraduate exam was initially supposed to be held on June 23. It was postponed by the Union Health Ministry as a "precautionary measure" in the wake of alleged irregularities in certain competitive exams. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ola-wants-to-re-enter-the-quick-commerce-business-to-take-on-blinkit-and-swiggy-instamart/articleshow/112364583.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ola-wants-to-re-enter-the-quick-commerce-business-to-take-on-blinkit-and-swiggy-instamart/articleshow/112364583.cms" target="_blank">Ola wants to re-enter the quick commerce business to take on Blinkit and Swiggy Instamart</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/rbi-mpc-meet-cheque-clearing-time-reduced-upi-limit-increased-for-tax-payment/articleshow/112366099.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/rbi-mpc-meet-cheque-clearing-time-reduced-upi-limit-increased-for-tax-payment/articleshow/112366099.cms" target="_blank">RBI MPC meet – Cheque clearing time reduced, UPI limit increased for tax payment</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tata-curvv-ev-with-up-to-585-km-range-launched-starting-at-17-49-lakh/slidelist/112342769.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tata-curvv-ev-with-up-to-585-km-range-launched-starting-at-17-49-lakh/slidelist/112342769.cms" target="_blank">Tata Curvv EV with up to 585 km range launched starting at ₹17.49 lakh</a>

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking postponement of NEET-PG on Friday

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

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the <keyword id="19910021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="house" source="keywords">House</keyword> are not immune from prosecution, the Supreme Court said on Monday in a landmark, unanimous verdict that overrules its 1998 judgment protecting such lawmakers. Observing that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges, a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y <keyword id="19985698" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chandrachud" source="keywords">Chandrachud</keyword> held that a five-judge bench's interpretation in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case was contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. Describing the judgment as "great", Prime Minister <keyword id="19895781" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="narendra-modi" source="keywords">Narendra Modi</keyword> said in a post on X that it would "ensure clean politics and deepen people's faith in the system". Articles 105 and 194 deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the legislative assemblies. "Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life," the CJI, who read the operative part of the verdict, said while pronouncing the verdict today. The bench also comprised Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, <keyword id="19931190" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sanjay-kumar" source="keywords">Sanjay Kumar</keyword> and Manoj Misra. In 1998, the five-judge constitution bench held in its majority verdict on the Narasimha Rao versus CBI case that parliamentarians have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The seven-judge bench was reconsidering the 1998 judgement. While pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech. Justice Chandrachud said the privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which he or she has to discharge. The seven-judge bench had reserved its judgement in the matter on October 5 last year. During the arguments, the Centre had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law. The top court, in the course of the hearing, had said it will examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions. On September 20, 2023, the <keyword id="19936355" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court" source="keywords">apex court</keyword> had agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgement, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on "morality of polity". The issue came under the apex court's lens in 2019, when a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by <keyword id="20405400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sita-soren" source="keywords">Sita Soren</keyword>, JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu <keyword id="19968807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="soren" source="keywords">Soren</keyword>. She was an accused in the JMM bribery scandal. The Gogoi-led bench had referred to a five-judge bench the matter, noting it had "wide ramification" and was of "substantial public importance". Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. She contended that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, be applied to her. She moved the apex court against the Jharkhand High Court order of February 17, 2014 refusing to quash the criminal case lodged against her. The three-judge bench had then said it will revisit the apex court verdict in the JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-union minister, and four other party MPs who had accepted bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the survival of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support. The CBI registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs but the Supreme Court quashed it citing immunity from prosecution they enjoyed under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank">Realme 12+ 5G with Dimensity 7050 chipset to launch in India on March 6</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank">Xiaomi 14 to launch in India on March 7, to take on the Galaxy S23 and OnePlus 12</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank">Upcoming cars launching in India in March 2024</a>

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday stayed the judgment rendered by the <keyword id="6371973" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court" source="Orion">Karnataka High Court</keyword> which had quashed the show cause notice issued by the <keyword id="4715965" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gst-department" source="Orion">GST department</keyword> demanding approximately Rs 21,000 crore from the online platform '<keyword id="7337525" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="gameskraft" source="Orion">Gameskraft</keyword>' holding that rummy is a 'game of skill'. A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued the notice on the special leave petition filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and listed the matter for hearing after three weeks. "We do not want High Courts across India to rely on this judgment (of the Karnataka High Court)," remarked the top court, while staying the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in May 11 this year. Online gaming and GST Earlier, in July this year, the <keyword id="6355040" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gst-council" source="Orion">GST Council</keyword> levied a 28% rate to casinos, horse racing, etc. on the amount the gaming company earns from its users. It also recommended removing the critical distinction between 'game of skill' and 'game of chance'. “The Government is saying that if it is a game of chance, it will come under the category of betting, gambling, so there will be a GST of 28% on the gross value. The industry is saying that it is a game of skill and should be liable to 18% GST, not on the gross value, but only on the commission component,” Pratik Jain, Partner, PwC India, had explained to Business Insider. Thus, the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/online-gaming-industry-says-28-gst-makes-operations-unfeasible/articleshow/101690521.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">industry has been asking for a GST rollback</a> as it claims that the 28% levied has made operations unfeasible.

You Searched For "j b pardiwala" and got 8 results

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

BI India Bureau

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking postponement of NEET-PG on Friday

PTI

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

BI India Bureau

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

PTI

SC stays K'taka HC decision quashing Rs 21,000 cr GST notice to online gaming platform

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides