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 <keyword id="6370199" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Federation-of-Sports-Gaming">Indian Federation of Sports Gaming</keyword> (IFSG) is the country’s only self-regulatory industry body.</li><li>It has appointed former <keyword id="137646" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-judge">Supreme Court judge</keyword> <keyword id="798960" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="AK-Sikri">AK Sikri</keyword> as its Ethics Officer. </li><li>The Indian <keyword id="6370198" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="fantasy-gaming">fantasy gaming</keyword> market is projected to touch $5 billion in the next two years with players like Dream11, Mobile Premier League leading the industry.</li></ul>As the fantasy gaming market grows in India, The Indian Federation of Sports Gaming (IFSG), which is the country’s only self-regulatory industry body, has appointed former Supreme Court judge AK Sikri as its Ethics Officer. Sikri, as the Ombudsman, will be responsible for investigating queries/complaints raised by users. “The sports gaming industry provides an untapped opportunity for sports lovers to showcase their sports knowledge and come closer to their favorite sport. As the industry prepares for the next wave of sports enthusiasts, as a self-regulatory industry body it is important to protect and educate operators and users about the industry and its best practices,” said Justice A K Sikri, Ombudsman, IFSG. IFSG currently has 32 members across fantasy sports operators and sports analytics firms. The Indian fantasy gaming market is projected to touch $5 billion in the next two years and has players like Dream11, Mobile Premier League leading the industry. Dream11, which has over 60 million users is associated with major cricketing events like the Indian Premier League and the ICC World Cup. MS Dhoni is its brand ambassador. Dream11 also became India’s first gaming unicorn in April 2019. Another player in the same field is Mobile Premier League which gained 20 million users within seven months of its launch. It also raised $35.5 million from Sequoia India. MPL has Indian skipper Virat Kohli as its brand ambassador.

Indian regulatory body for fantasy gaming appoints former Supreme Court judge AK Sikri as its Ethics Officer

The honourable Supreme Court has hinted that it could disallow <keyword id="102342" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Public-Interest-Litigations">public interest litigations</keyword> (PILs) that involve commercial interests so that proxy corporate wars from can be prevented in the court. 
 
In the past, PILs have resulted in historic court orders that left considerable business impacts, for example group cancellation of telecom spectrum and coal block allocations. 
 After it disallows commercial interest PILs, the court might restrict its dealing to selective PILs, which would be selected after a rigorous scrutiny process. The decision was hinted at by a three-judge bench, including Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi. The bench was hearing a petition on the acquisition of <keyword id="2285630" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Infotel-Telecom">Infotel Telecom</keyword> by Reliance Industries. 
 
"In the next phase of development (in PILs), we must ensure that that the process is not abused, only used in the fittest of cases. It must be an institutional mechanism," Justice Thakur told ET. 
 
He further suggested that a credible interface between the judicial process and the civil society is needed. 
 "How do we prevent misuse of the judicial process to settle scores, commercial rivalries," the CJI asked <keyword id="6368850" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Prashant-Bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, the advocate for the petitioner, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). 
 
"You must satisfy us that the information, that your process of verifying information which comes to you, must be credible. We won't allow the process to be taken for a ride," Justice Thakur told Bhushan after he told the court that the NGO had so far filed 50 cases. 
 
"We must be convinced that your petition is genuine. Otherwise (Harish) Salve (who appeared for Reliance) will say you are settlings scores," the CJI said. The case has been reserved by the court for the final order. 
 
Bhushan, on the other hand, said that public interest is a hige factor in deciding whether or not to file a case in court, and that commercial interest might be incidental. 
 
To this, the CJI rejected the view and said, "When so much time is spent on them (such cases) and litigation costs are so high, we must devise ways to keep out commercial fights and business rivalries. We may end up spending precious time to only draw a blank." 
 
<a href="http://legaltrigger.com/images/5052261194.jpg">Image source</a>

PILs with commercial interest might be disallowed, hints the Supreme Court

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday dismissed a plea seeking to disclose details under the Right to Information (RTI) of a collegium meeting in which decisions were taken regarding the elevation of judges to the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>. A bench headed by Justice M.R. Shah said, "Only a resolution drawn and signed by all the collegium members can be said to be the final decision..." The bench added that "it is to be noted that final decision is taken by the collegium only after due consultation and during the consultation some decision takes place, but no final decision is taken and no resolution is drawn, it cannot be said that a final decision is taken by the collegium". "Collegium is a multi-member body whose decision embodies into the resolution that may be formally drawn up and signed...," said the bench, adding that only the final decision was required to be uploaded on the Supreme Court's website. It further added that whatever was discussed in the collegium was not required to be put out in the public domain, that too under the RTI Act. The top court judgment came on a petition by activist <keyword id="221607" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anjali-bhardwaj" source="Orion">Anjali Bhardwaj</keyword> against the Delhi High Court order, which dismissed her plea seeking apex court collegium's agenda in connection with a meeting held on December 12, 2018 when certain decisions were purportedly taken on the elevation of some judges to the apex court. On December 2, the Supreme Court, taking a dig at retired judges, said, "It has become a fashion for them to comment about earlier decisions taken by the collegium, and the existing collegium system should not be derailed on the basis of statements of some busybody". The apex court emphasized that the collegium was the most transparent institution. The bench said that it did not want to comment on what a few former apex court judges, who were once members of the Supreme Court Collegium, were now saying about the mechanism. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, said Justice Madan Lokur, former apex court judge, who was part of the Supreme Court Collegium in 2018, had said that one of the decisions, should have been uploaded on the Supreme Court website. The bench said, "Nowadays, it has become a fashion to comment upon earlier decisions (of the collegium) made when they (former judges) were part of the collegium". It further added, "We don't want to say anything on their comments". The collegium, which was headed by then CJI <keyword id="245445" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="ranjan-gogoi" source="Orion">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> and comprising four senior-most judges Justices Lokur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, and N.V. Ramana took certain decisions regarding the appointment of judges. However, details were not uploaded on the website. In January 2019, the collegium revisited the decisions "in the light of additional materials". SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/paytm-board-to-consider-share-buyback-proposal-on-december-13/articleshow/96101460.cms">Paytm board to consider share buyback proposal on December 13</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/sensex-nifty50-open-in-the-green-paytm-rises-on-buyback-proposal-hcl-tech-declines/articleshow/96101305.cms">Sensex, Nifty50 open in the green – Paytm rises on buyback proposal, HCL Tech declines</a>

Collegium discussions can't be put out in public domain through RTI: SC

<ul><li>A five-member bench of India’s <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>, led by outgoing chief justice Dipak Misra, upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhar ID programme. </li><li>Enrollment in the programme has been made necessary for filing tax returns. </li><li>However, in light of the threats to an individual’s <keyword id="6355135" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Privacy">privacy</keyword>, a number of provisions of the Aadhar Act of 2016 were struck down. </li><li>Indians don’t have to hand over their <keyword id="144117" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="AADHAAR">Aadhaar</keyword> info when opening up bank accounts or getting a mobile subscription. In addition, Section 33(2) of the act, which mandates disclosure of Aadhaar details for the purposes of national security was scrapped. </li></ul>After four months and 38 days of hearings, the matter has been laid to rest. On 26 September, a five-member bench of India’s Supreme Court, led by outgoing chief justice Dipak Misra, upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhar ID programme, voting 4-1 in favour of the scheme, and allowed its passage as a money bill. In a verdict read by Justice AK Sikri, the scheme was said to empower the marginalised sections of Indian society. The bench also found that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the government agency in charge of the scheme, had taken adequate measures to prevent the card from being duplicated. Enrollment in the programme was also made necessary for filing tax returns through linking with PAN cards. However, in light of the threats to an individual’s privacy, a number of provisions of the Aadhaar Act of 2016 were struck down. Section 33(2) which mandates disclosure of Aadhaar details for the purposes of national security was scrapped, as was Section 57, under which private companies are allowed to ask for a citizen’s Aadhaar details in order to provide services. This means that Indians don’t have to hand over their Aadhaar info when opening up bank accounts or getting a mobile subscription. Infact, telecom companies have been ordered to delete all the Aadhaar details of their customers. Additionally, educational institutions will not be allowed to ask for the Aadhaar details of prospective students. An expected outcome? While it may have seemed far from a foregone conclusion, there was no way that the Supreme Court could undo the world’s largest biometric identification programme and make the government start from scratch, especially in light of the scheme’s progress so far and the amount invested, which is estimated at around ₹88 billion. Despite the amount of data leaks and growing privacy concerns, the scheme has enrolled 1.2 billion Indians and allowed a lot of people to access government services. In retrospect, the scheme was always going to be modified to incorporate <keyword id="145060" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="data-security">data security</keyword> protocols and to allow citizens the option of enrolling. The modifications to the scheme also reflected a landmark decision made by the Supreme Court in August last year, when it declared that privacy was a fundamental right.

The Aadhaar ID programme is here to stay but with some modifications

<ul><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of <keyword id="3658" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="India">India</keyword> has imposed a ban on bursting pollution causing fireworks during <keyword id="188" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="Diwali">Diwali</keyword> in the country’s national capital, New Delhi. </li><li>Meanline, the other cities and states in the country have no such restrictions and can go about bursting normal fireworks. </li><li>If people in New Delhi want to burst ‘normal’ fireworks during the festive season, they will have to travel between 140kms to 200kms out of the city. </li></ul>India’s top court has cracked down on fireworks ahead of Diwali, one of India’s biggest Hindu festivals. While the Supreme Court has the banned the manufacturing and sale of all ‘pollution causing’ fireworks in New Delhi in face of deteriorating air quality, other states and cities in Indian can still indulge in normal fireworks. That being said, the Supreme Court has issued an alternative where people in New Delhi and its surrounding areas can still burst <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-what-are-green-crackers-5415113/">‘green fireworks’</a>, but only between the hours of 8PM and 10PM. The court also mentioned that green firecrackers would eventually supersede the other kinds with the increase in their manufacturing from next year onwards. It’s not that other states aren’t considering more strict regulations on the bursting of fireworks during the festive season, but they are still allowed to call on their previous stock of fireworks, green or otherwise <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/supreme-court-only-green-crackers-to-be-used-in-delhi-ncr-5428096/">according to</a> Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. But the ban on the online sale of fireworks through e-commerce portals like Amazon and Flipkart applies across the nation. In order to ensure effective implementation, the Supreme Court has also threatened to drag online retailers to court if they don’t abide by the issued guidelines. The rest of India The issue with the Supreme Court’s directive is that not everyone around India celebrates Diwali at the <a href="https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/diwali-crackers-bursting-time-north-south-india-supreme-court/story/286530.html">same time</a>. While northern states celebrate Diwali at night, southern states prefer to celebrate it in the morning. Meanwhile most states in the east celebrate Diwali a before the actual ‘designated’ day of the festival. States like Tamil Nadu and Puducherry have <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-modifies-firecracker-order-tamil-nadu-puducherry-can-fix-timing-but-cannot-exceed-2-hours-5425063/">permitted</a> the use of fireworks between the hours of 4 AM to 5 AM in the morning and 9 PM to 10 PM during the night. Meanwhile, in the city of Mumbai, shopkeepers are <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/after-supreme-court-order-firecracker-retailers-stare-at-losses-this-diwali-stock-up-other-items-in-mumbai-5428097/">diversifying</a> the products they offer to include more ‘decorative fireworks’ and those approved by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO). The firework ban legally covers areas that are nearly <a href="https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/firecracker-ban-in-delhi-where-all-ban-is-applicable-to-purchase-crackers-legally-this-is-how-far-you-will-have-to-go-answer-will-break-your-heart/888749/">140 kms to 200 kms</a> from the eastern and the southern borders of Delhi spreading out over 21 districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. About <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/many-people-now-want-curbs-on-firecrackers-in-their-cities-says-assocham/article9908815.ece">35%</a> of the citizens responded positively towards the ban of polluted firecrackers considering the<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/clean-air-week-india-to-deploy-emergency-measures-for-controlling-air-pollution/articleshow/66446663.cms"> worsening air pollution</a> situation. However, a lot of people still believe that the ban will not make much of a difference to the air quality. Majority of people are now gearing up for muted celebrations this Diwali, though the effectiveness is yet to be seen. Government initiatives have largely impacted the fireworks industry in India and it has seen a degradation of nearly 40% over the last five years.

The rest of India can burst normal fireworks, but its national capital is restricted to staying ‘green’

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> has lifted the ban it had imposed on the registration of large diesel-powered vehicles in Delhi and NCR, after automakers offered to pay a 1% environment protection charge on every car that gets registered in the region. 
 
The ban was imposed on the registration of passenger vehicles having engines with 2 litres and more capacity in last December, so that the rising air pollution could be controlled. 
 
"Let (the environment protection charge of) 1% come. Pollution is now under control," said an SC bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi. 
 
The companies will be paying 1% charge on the vehicle's ex-showroom price, excluding local levies and insurance cost. The rate can be modified or removed later, and could also be imposed on vehicles having less than 2-litre engines. 
 
<a href="http://quintype-01.imgix.net/thequint/2016-01/7433c2f5-333d-44bc-a591-62dacc9f919f/delhi-traffic-reuters.jpg">Image source</a>

Supreme Court lifts ban on large diesel vehicles’ registration in Delhi, NCR

<keyword id="6354756" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="BCCI">BCCI</keyword> president <keyword id="76390" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="N-Srinivasan">N Srinivasan</keyword> cannot resume his duties as the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> has declined to entertain his plea, seeking restoration of his powers. The Bench of Justice BS Chauhan and Justice AK Sikri declined to hear Srinivasan’s plea and said they would not interfere with the order passed by another Bench. 
 
“We are not going to hear. We are not here to modify the orders of any other Bench. Justice Patnaik is very much in the city... you can approach him,” said Justice Chauhan. 
 
“The orders he is seeking to be modified were not passed ex-parte and he was present (through his counsel) in the court,” said Justice Sikri. 
“You are respondent No. 2. You were very much present in the hearing. This not an ex-parte order. You were there when order was passed,” Justice Sikri also told counsel Nagendra Rai, who appeared for Srinivasan.

SC Rejects Srinivasan’s Plea To Be
Reinstated As BCCI Chief

Senior advocate <keyword id="38062" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ram-Jethmalani">Ram Jethmalani</keyword>, who has been fighting the legal battle to bring back <keyword id="6356023" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Black-Money">black money</keyword> stashed money abroad, has expressed disappointment over the government's failure in recovering the black money. He called the government's response on the issue a "total disappointment." 
 "I am not recovering my money, but the nation's money. Till a legislation is passed, not a farthing will come. I drafted a law and sent a copy to the Prime Minister. It has been passed on to the finance ministry. Are they in favour of this legislation? If they don't want to do it, they should let it be known. Otherwise, I will go to the real sovereign — the people," said Jethmalani, a former member of the <keyword id="14666" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP">BJP</keyword>. 
 The BJP had promised to bring back black money during the election campaign. It had also constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to look into this. “But not a single rupee has been brought back in the last six months,” Jethmalani's lawyer Anil Divan told the Supreme bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and justices <keyword id="135052" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Madan-B-Lokur">Madan B Lokur</keyword> and AK Sikri. 
 
Jethmalani had played a key role in filing a public interest litigation (PIL) on the issue of black money.

Not A Single Rupee Has Been Brought Back In The Last 6 Months: Ram Jethmalani

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had passed an order staying the merger of <keyword id="6359469" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ranbaxy">Ranbaxy</keyword> with <keyword id="44642" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Sun-Pharma">Sun Pharma</keyword>, to deliver its judgment on the issue within two days. 
 
A bench of Justice BS Chauhan and Justice AK Sikri posted the case for hearing on May 27. 
 
The pharmaceutical giants had moved court, seeking its direction to vacate the high court’s interim order, which stayed the merger and asked to maintain the status quo. 
 
The HC had passed the order on a petition filed by two individual investors who alleged heavy trading of Ranbaxy stocks before the announcement of merger with Sun Pharma. 
 They had pleaded to the court to direct the <keyword id="35210" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="sebi">SEBI</keyword> to investigate the insider trading of Ranbaxy shares and take appropriate action against Sun Pharma and Silver Street. 
 
Senior advocate Abhishekh Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sun Pharmaceutical, submitted that there is “absolute abuse of process of law in the case as the order was passed on a petition of two individuals, which would affect the biggest deal in the pharma sector.” 
 
The bench, however, said shareholders have the right to challenge the merger. 
 
On April 6, the Mumbai-based Sun Pharma had announced it would acquire Ranbaxy in an all-stock transaction with a total equity value of $3.2 billion, along with a debt of $800 million, taking the overall deal value to $4 billion.

SC Tells Andhra HC To Decide On
Ranbaxy-Sun Pharma Merger Within 2 Days

Lok Sabha Election 2019 Second Phase - 95 Constituency Candidate List from Key Parties

<keyword id="6358777" type="COMPANY" weightage="80" keywordseo="New-Delhi">NEW DELHI</keyword>: The Delhi government told the Supreme Court that BSES companies of <keyword id="10926" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Reliance">Reliance</keyword> Infrastructure were “inefficient” as they had defaulted on their dues to NTPC and other <keyword id="44578" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="electricity">electricity</keyword> suppliers, unlike the Tata group’s distribution arm that had promptly paid. 
 
“These two companies owe Rs 4,500 crore. My concern is outages. You cannot take electricity and not pay for it. At the end of the day the Tatas are paying, why can’t (BSES) Rajdhani? Both are working in the same regulatory regime,” Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra told a two-judge bench hearing the case. The two Reliance companies have been locked in a bitter stand-off with the generating companies over arrears. They claim that the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) has failed to provide adequate tariffs that can cover costs and give reasonable returns. 
 
BSES lawyer Mukul Rohatgi claimed on Wednesday that the dues outstanding to the two companies are around .`15,000 cr. The company has cited this outstanding amount as the reason why it could not pay generating companies any more money till it recovered some part of the dues. Power major NTPC has earlier threatened to cut off powers to BSES if the stalemate continued. 
 
At the last hearing, the bench asked NTPC to desist from doing any such thing in “consumer” interest and asked BSES to pay a sum of.`700 crore due from the beginning of the 2014. 
 
On Wednesday, when the bench reconvened, BSES and the power generating companies again traded charges over non-payment of dues. While NTPC insisted that no dues have been paid since the last court hearing and suggested “power regulation” to deal with the problem, a euphemism for power cuts, BSES claimed it had paid.`601 crore so far. Senior advocate KK Venugopal claimed that NTPC had in turn to pay Coal India and non-payment by BSES was having a “cascading effect” all around. 
 
“He is the biggest industrialist in the country,” Venugopal stated. Rohatgi countered this. “I am owed Rs15,000 crore, and I am termed inefficient!” The bench then adjourned the case till Tue dayto allow both sides to sort out the issue of payment of current dues, but not before the DERC, through senior advocate Meet Malhotra, had similarly accused BSES of being “inefficient” and “financially indisciplined”. 
 
Malhotra claimed that there were major variations in figures in audited statements made earlier and now, adding a CAG audit would help uncover the facts. The previous arrears may accordingly have to be downgraded, he said. 
 
The DERC has in a roadmap for recovery of dues suggested an 8per cent surcharge to recover these over a period. Any adjustments will bring down the recovery period. He also accused BSES of not infusing enough equity to instill enough confidence in banks to loan them amounts necessary to pay back power generating companies. 
 
“It is evident that the current financial position could have been avoided by infusion of requisite equity from time to time by BYPL,” he told Justices SS Nijjar and AK Sikri who are hearing the case. The discoms accuse the state and the central governments of failing to bail them out by subsidising their costs as done in other states.

You Searched For "AK Sikri" and got 11 results

Indian regulatory body for fantasy gaming appoints former Supreme Court judge AK Sikri as its Ethics Officer

Sanchita Dash

PILs with commercial interest might be disallowed, hints the Supreme Court

BI India Bureau

Collegium discussions can't be put out in public domain through RTI: SC

IANS

The Aadhaar ID programme is here to stay but with some modifications

Dilsher Dhillon

The rest of India can burst normal fireworks, but its national capital is restricted to staying ‘green’

BI India Bureau

Supreme Court lifts ban on large diesel vehicles’ registration in Delhi, NCR

BI India Bureau

SC Rejects Srinivasan’s Plea To Be Reinstated As BCCI Chief

BI India Bureau

Not A Single Rupee Has Been Brought Back In The Last 6 Months: Ram Jethmalani

BI India Bureau

SC Tells Andhra HC To Decide On Ranbaxy-Sun Pharma Merger Within 2 Days

BI India Bureau

Lok Sabha Election 2019 Second Phase - 95 Constituency Candidate List from Key Parties

BI India Bureau

Reliance Infrastructure Discoms Are 'Inefficient': Delhi Government To Supreme Court

Economic Times

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides