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

The <keyword id="6354977" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday told the Centre to give reasons if the government is departing from the decision taken last year, amid the Covid pandemic, in connection with the <keyword id="4571860" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="class-XII-board-exams">class XII board exams</keyword>. The top court suggested that the policy adopted last year can also be adopted this year. Attorney General (AG) <keyword id="349004" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="K-K-Venugopal">K.K. Venugopal</keyword>, representing the Centre, urged the top court to give him time till Wednesday to come back with a decision on cancelling of class <keyword id="155806" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="XII">XII</keyword> <keyword id="32862" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="board-exams">board exams</keyword> due to the pandemic. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and <keyword id="1553728" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dinesh-Maheshwari">Dinesh Maheshwari</keyword> told the AG, "you take a decision, but if you are departing from the decision taken last year in connection with the exams, then you must give us good reasons." The government will take a final decision within the next two days on whether to conduct class 12 board exams amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court was informed on Monday. Attorney General K K <keyword id="15333" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Venugopal">Venugopal</keyword> told this to a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari which was hearing a plea seeking directions to cancel the class 12 exams of the <keyword id="6356155" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="cbse">CBSE</keyword> and Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (CISCE) in view of the current situation. "No issue. You take the decision. You are entitled to it. If you are departing from the policy of last year, then you must give tangible reasons for it," the bench told Venugopal. The bench emphasized that the policy which was adopted previous year can be adopted this year too and reiterated that if Centre is departing from the notification issued earlier then it should have good tangible reason. The AG replied that a meeting has been called to take a decision on the issue. The bench responded, "Take whatever decision that's appropriate but what has been expressed by the petitioner is that last year's policy should be followed." The bench further queried the AG, a notification was issued last year, why can it not be continued this year? After a brief hearing in the matter, the top court adjourned the case to Thursday. The petition filed by advocate Mamta Sharma urged the top court to issue directions to the boards to cancel the Class XII examinations, instead devise an objective methodology to declare the result within a specific time-frame. "The Covid-19 situation is more severe in comparison to last year and require the respondents to adopt the same criteria of assessing the grading/marks of class XII students as done in the last year", said the plea. The plea contended that notifications issued by CBSE and ICSE deferring the exams to an unspecified date should be quashed, adding that students cannot be subjected to suffer uncertainty amid unprecedented public health crisis. The plea contended that it is a fit case wherein the top court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the respondents to implement the same methodology, which is being adopted for class X to declare the result and cancel the examination for Class XII. Last year, amid the pandemic the top court had asked boards to determine and declare Class 12 exam results on the basis of earlier assessment of students. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-se-3-smartphone-launch-date-specifications-expected-price-in-india/articleshow/83107752.cms">iPhone SE 3 launch date, specifications, price in India and everything else we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/lockdown-new-rule-in-maharashtra-check-out-whats-is-allowed-and-whats-not-from-june-1/articleshow/83106701.cms">Maharashtra lockdown: Checkout what is allowed and what is not as per the new guidelines</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/former-hdfc-bank-ceo-aditya-puri-and-carlyle-will-be-among-the-new-owners-of-pnb-housing-finance-triggering-an-open-offer/articleshow/83105948.cms">Former HDFC Bank CEO Aditya Puri and Carlyle will be among the new owners of PNB Housing Finance triggering an open offer</a>

Government to take decision on Class 12 board exams in two days — Supreme Court suggests using same policy as last year

<ul><li>The government files affidavit in the review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Rafale case</li><li>Ministry accused petitioners of conspiring to leak sensitive information about India's war capacity</li><li>A similar statement by Attorney General KK Venugopal faced severe criticism</li></ul> The Ministry of Defence has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on March 13 in a case that questions the sanctity of the government deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from the French company Dassault. "...the deponent of the affidavit of the Review Petition are guilty of leakage of sensitive information, which offends the terms of the agreements. Additionally, those who have conspired in this leakage are guilty of penal offences under the Indian Penal Code including theft by unauthorized photocopying and leakage of sensitive official documents affecting National Security,” Bar and Bench reported. The ministry also contends that the petitioners have no authority to produce the documents before the Supreme Court without explicit permission from the Government of India. The Supreme Court is presented with an appeal to review its December 2018 verdict that gave the government a clean chit after accusations of corruption in the defence procurement deal. The petitioners include former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, a former union minister Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan. Both Sinha and Shourie have been part of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in the past. The affidavit is in consonance with the allegation made by the Attorney General KK Venugopal that the documents were stolen and an inquiry under the Officials Secrets Act was underway-- a statement which he later corrected as "photocopied without permission". SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/Seven-shocking-truths-about-how-India-buys-arms/articleshow/67981937.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Seven shocking truths about how India buys arms</a>

India's defence ministry claims the Rafale review petition is a threat to national security

<ul><li>The Supreme Court has declared that its willing to go live during its proceedings. </li><li>Attorney general KK Venugopal has been asked to submit a draft of necessary guidelines for a live-stream proceeding. </li><li>The Jury says that if it works well in the SC, live stream can be extended to other courtrooms in India. </li></ul>On Monday, the Supreme Court (SC) took the <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/court-takes-first-step-to-live-stream-proceedings/articleshow/64924977.cms">first step </a>towards live streaming proceedings by declaring its willingness to initiate the process. The court had rejected the idea many times before, however, it has now asked attorney general KK Venugopal, who supported petitioner Indira Jaising’s plea for live streaming, to submit a draft of necessary guidelines. The next hearing for the matter will take place on 23 July. The bench, headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> and comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said that the court was conceptually an ‘open court’ and everyone is allowed to watch the hearings. It further added that a litigant must be entitled to know how their lawyers are dealing with their cases, even if the litigant is not physically present there and going live would make it happen. The SC pointed out that this live streaming would be most beneficial for people from far away places of <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/live-streaming-of-court-proceedings-can-be-undertaken-centre-tells-sc/story-wEpA5SpbfwVpFuUgss7CHI.html">South India</a>, who otherwise have to travel all the way to the Capital to hear the proceedings. The supporters also believe that it would lead to increased transparency. Last year the court had taken another huge step in transparency by allowing installation of CCTV cameras, recording both video and audio, across <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-favours-live-streaming-of-court-proceedings/article24370456.ece">trial rooms</a> and tribunals of all states. The number of people crowding courtrooms during important judgements will also go down once the live streaming facility is activated. They will be able to watch it all sitting at home, much like the way it happens in England. While, the right to information is strongly being asserted in support of this matter, the fundamental right to privacy comes under threat. The litigants’ right to privacy is at risk if courts discuss all cases live for all to watch. Apprehensions are being raised regarding national security cases, rape cases, matrimonial disputes etc that are far too sensitive to be put in front of an indiscrete public. The court had been waiting since 3 May for a response from the Centre on the issue of live streaming. The government mooted the possibility of a separate television channel for the live stream, similar to what exists for streaming discussions that take place in the <keyword id="48510" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajya-Sabha">Rajya Sabha</keyword> and the Lok Sabha. Jaising has mentioned in her request that if it (the streaming) is to be done, the live broadcast must be non-commercial and reproduction of the stream must remain unauthorised. If it works well in the SC, the jury says, the decision can be extended to other courtrooms in the country.

Now watching: Supreme Court of India may go live during proceedings

<ul><li>Supreme Court has issued a three week deadline for the Indian government to submit an affidavit outlining its efforts to curb <keyword id="1892122" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Misuse-of-Social-Media">misuse of social media</keyword>. </li><li>The Court has also asked the government for a timeline on when social media guidelines will be ready for implementation. </li><li>The bench stated that the Supreme Court and the High Court aren’t the correct forums for such discourse. </li><li>The guidelines should include measures on how to trace messages back to their original senders. </li></ul>Online crime is a growing menace and the Indian Supreme Court has given the government three weeks to disclose steps taken towards the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/the-indian-government-is-looking-at-policing-online-content-on-social-media-including-breaking-end-to-end-encryption-report/articleshow/67230131.cms">thwarting misuse of social media</a> so far. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, has also asked the government to lay out the timeframe for when these guidelines will be ready to implement. The Supreme Court and the High Court aren’t the right forums to deal with issues of social media, according to Gupta, which is why the government needs to step in and have a policy in place. The guidelines should outline how information can be traced back to its original sender in order to prevent illegal activities, according to <a href="https://barandbench.com/social-media-case-sc-centre-when-guidelines-will-be-issued/">Bar &amp; Bench</a> report. At the same time, the bench also pointed out that there needs to be a balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the sovereignty of the state. The issue of encryption Platforms like WhatsApp — recently under the radar for facilitating the sharing of misinformation and fake news — have <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/whatsapp-spyware-hack-questioned-by-indian-government/articleshow/69376429.cms">told the government</a> that tracking messages back to their original senders isn’t possible because of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-demands-to-whatsapp-are-easier-said-than-done/articleshow/65497255.cms">end-to-end encryption</a>. This means that no one but the sender of the message and the receipt know the content. Even, WhatsApp can’t see the messages, according to the company. Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal representing Facebook and WhatsApp, pointed out that while this may be an obstacle, it’s only restricted to a select few social networking platforms. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued that even if end-to-end encryption is in place, there are workarounds. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/whatsapp-messages-origin-can-be-traced-says-iit-madras-professor/articleshow/70603973.cms">A professor from IIT Madras</a> has already filed an affidavit with the Madras High Court on a possible solution to the problem. Even the government has been looking into <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/whatsapp-fingerprint-messages-to-avoid-encryption-issues-with-indian-government/articleshow/69836927.cms">digital fingerprinting</a> as a way to trace messages without breaking encryption. The Supreme Court will hold its next hearing on the matter on 22 October 2019. Before then, the Madras High Court is scheduled to hold its hearing on 1 October 2019. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/whatsapp-messages-origin-can-be-traced-says-iit-madras-professor/articleshow/70603973.cms">After Indian government, IIT professor points out how WhatsApp messages can be traced</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/whatsapp-faces-international-pressure-to-hand-over-access-to-encrypted-chats/articleshow/70467569.cms">WhatsApp faces international pressure to hand over access to encrypted chats</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/western-governments-enter-uncharted-territory-as-they-grapple-with-problem-of-harmful-content-on-social-media/articleshow/68881827.cms">Western governments enter uncharted territory as they grapple with problem of harmful content on social media</a>

India’s Supreme Court has put the government on a timer to curb misuse of social media

<ul><li>India's Supreme Court will consider fresh evidence to be produced by petitioners in the <keyword id="921384" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rafale-deal">Rafale deal</keyword>.</li><li>Judges turn down the incumbent government's appeal against the sourcing of the evidence.</li><li>The Government had contended that the new evidence may not be admissible because they were 'privileged' documents. </li></ul>A nearly 40-year old verdict from the Supreme Court of US, in the Pentagon papers leak that unraveled America's involvement in the Vietnam war, has become the basis of the latest court verdict in an alleged corruption case against the Indian government. The country's most recent scandal involving the Narendra Modi's agreement to purchase 36 Rafale fighter jets from French company Dassault has seen a fresh twist. The country's top court will consider fresh evidence brought in by the petitioners against the government. The government's appeal that the documents to be presented were 'privileged', <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rafale-documents-not-stolen-petitioners-used-photocopies-attorney-general/articleshow/68322747.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">deemed secret by the government</a>, and, therefore, inadmissible as evidence, has been unanimously turned down by the bench of judges, including the Chief Justice of India. A Indian daily alleged, <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rafale-modi-govt-gave-unprecedented-waivers-in-offset-agreements/article26775545.ece" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">citing classified documents</a>, that the Modi administration gave unprecedented waivers to the French company escalating the cost to the exchequer. The series of reports were taken up by the petitioners in the case for seeking a review of the earlier judgement that did not find any reason to doubt the government's decision. The Modi government's Attorney General, KK Venugopal, contended that the sourcing of these documents by the newspaper, The Hindu, was a breach of the <keyword id="167751" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Official-Secrets-Act">Official Secrets Act</keyword>. However, that has now been turned down by the Indian Supreme Court. However, the petitioners cited the US Supreme Court verdict on the Pentagon papers leak to say that once documents are published, the government can no longer claim privilege. In 1971, the New York Times had published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/pentagon-papers-post.html" data-type="tilCustomLink">leaked papers from the Pentagon</a>, the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, that uncovered America's secret involvement in the Vietnam war. Following the leaks, the then US government had tried to book the whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg for conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property and endangering national security. The charges against Ellsberg were later dropped. The Rafale deal In April 2015, the Indian government announced that it will buy 36 Rafale fighter jets off-the-shelf, scaling back from an earlier agreement, struck by the previous government, to buy a total of 126 jets, of which 18 would be off-the-shelf. Rivals have accused the Modi government of reworking the deal at higher cost to the taxpayer, of about ₹58,000 crore, and adding clauses that would benefit a friendly industrialist, Anil Ambani, whose company Reliance Defence had been picked as Dassault's Indian partner. To be clear, while questions have been raised against the Rafale deal, so far nothing has been proven beyond doubt. Even the federal auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, had given the government a clean chit. The latest Supreme Court order to consider the fresh evidence has come a day before polling begins in the 2019 general elections where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking a second term. His rivals are likely to turn up the heat on the ruling coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the eve of the polling to tilt the scales in their favour. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/cag-report-on-rafale-deal-tabled-in-parliament-says-jets-cheaper-under-modi-government-than-upa/articleshow/67970948.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">CAG report on Rafale deal is a blessing for Modi government</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/Seven-shocking-details-about-how-India-buys-arms/Chinook-Heavy-Lift/slideshow/67982017.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Seven shocking truths about how India buys arms</a>

The US verdict on Pentagon papers leak has put India's Narendra Modi government in a spot

<keyword id="45830" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bill-Gates">Bill Gates</keyword> is a lot of things. He’s the founder of Microsoft, one of the world’s richest men and arguably, the world’s most generous philanthropist. He’s also an advocate of the world’s largest biometric identification programme, the Indian government’s <keyword id="155319" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aadhar">Aadhar</keyword> scheme. It currently has over 1.1 billion Indian citizens enrolled. Gates has said that the scheme <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/aadhaar-doesnt-pose-any-privacy-issue-bill-gates/articleshow/64013082.cms">does not pose any privacy issues</a>. In an additional vote of confidence, he has also provided funding for <keyword id="6354424" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="world-bank">World Bank</keyword> projects to replicate the scheme in other countries. Gates did, however stress, that the applications that use people’s Aadhar details need to be monitored effectively. “The individual applications that use Aadhaar, you have to look and see what's been stored and who has access to that information. And so, application by application, you have to make sure that's well managed”. Gate’s remarks echo similar sentiments expressed in November 2017, when he said that he didn’t called Aadhar a <a href="https://www.thequint.com/news/india/bill-gates-on-aadhaar-elephantiasis-swachh-bharat">“12-digit lie detector”</a> and said that it didn’t intrude on people’s <keyword id="6355135" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Privacy">privacy</keyword> by itself. It’s worth noting that he was also a <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bill-gates-lauds-govts-demonetisation-move/articleshow/55465263.cms">big fan of the Indian government’s demonetisation move</a> when it was launched, before<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Now-Gates-has-%E2%80%98no-opinion%E2%80%99-on-demonetisation/article16644671.ece"> changing tack the following month</a>. The Aadhar scheme has received a lot of backlash in recent years over security breaches, data leaks, its potential for mass surveillance and the fact that it requires the accumulation of several details of a person in a central database. There have also been fundamental concerns regarding the release of personal information to government agencies. In response, the government has consistently downplayed these concerns and cited the scheme as a tool for empowerment and the distribution of benefits. In July last year, K.K. Venugopal, the Attorney General representing the central government, said <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-to-privacy-not-fundamental-right-centre-tells-sc/article19369385.ece">that privacy could not be considered a fundamental right.</a> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme court</keyword> disagreed, accordingly, stating the following month that privacy was “<a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/right-to-privacy-is-a-fundamental-right-supreme-court/articleshow/60203394.cms">intrinsic to the right to life</a>”. Hence, in implementing of the scheme, the government will have to focus on ensuring the right to privacy. The matter is still ongoing in the Supreme Court, and is said to be in its final stages. In the meantime, the linking of Aadhar details with mobile phones and <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/epfo-suspends-services-through-csc-says-no-data-leakage-1225340-2018-05-02">provident fund accounts</a> has been suspended, although the RBI still made it mandatory <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/rbi-makes-aadhaar-linking-of-bank-accounts-mandatory/article23621105.ece">for opening a bank account</a>, subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Bill Gates defends India's Aadhar scheme, again

<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 "KK Venugopal" and got 7 results

Government to take decision on Class 12 board exams in two days — Supreme Court suggests using same policy as last year

IANS

India's defence ministry claims the Rafale review petition is a threat to national security

Sriram Iyer

Now watching: Supreme Court of India may go live during proceedings

BI India Bureau

India’s Supreme Court has put the government on a timer to curb misuse of social media

Prabhjote Gill

The US verdict on Pentagon papers leak has put India's Narendra Modi government in a spot

Sriram Iyer

Bill Gates defends India's Aadhar scheme, again

Dilsher Dhillon

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

Economic Times

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides