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 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.<br /><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."<br /><br />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."<br /><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.<br /><br />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."<br />    <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.<br /><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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />    <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.<br /><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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em><br />

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

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses.<br /><br />The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children.<br /><div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” <br /><br />During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage.<br /><br />Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported.<br /><h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage.<br /><br />The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth.<br /><br />The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as:<br /><br /><ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands.<br /><br />While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented.<br /><br />In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings.<br />    <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div><br />

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

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

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

New Delhi, Capital markets regulator Sebi on Thursday said it has initiated the third tranche of distribution of nearly Rs 15 crore to 2.58 lakh investors from the disgorged amount in the matter of IPO irregularities observed during 2003-2005.  The regulator has already distributed Rs 23.28 crore in April 2010 and Rs 18.06 crore in December 2015, according to a release. <br /><br /> The capital markets watchdog has been distributing funds among eligible investors from the money collected by it through disgorgement orders in cases of irregularities in the <keyword id="136443" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="initial-public-offerings" source="Orion">Initial Public Offerings</keyword> (IPO). <br /><br /> The regulator had investigated certain irregularities in the shares issued through 21 IPOs during the period 2003-2005 before their listing on the stock exchanges. Following the completion of the investigations, the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword> (Sebi) directed certain persons to disgorge the illegal gains. <br /><br /> Under the chairmanship of former Judge of the <keyword id="18524826" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india-d-p-wadhwa" source="Orion">Supreme Court of India D P Wadhwa</keyword>, a committee was set up which recommended the procedure of identification of persons who have been deprived in the said IPOs and the manner in which reallocation of shares to such persons should take place. <br /><br /> As per the recommendations of the <keyword id="88696" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="wadhwa" source="Orion">Wadhwa</keyword> committee, 13.57 lakh persons had been identified as eligible investors for distribution. <br /><br /> Of 13.57 lakh investors, 10.02 lakh investors were paid the full eligible amount and 97,657 investors were excluded due to the costs involved. <br /><br /> "Sebi has initiated the third tranche for distribution of Rs 14.87 crore to 2.58 lakh investors from the disgorged/recovered amount in the matter of IPO irregularities on August 17, 2023," the regulator said. <br /><br /> In the current exercise, Sebi is distributing amounts to those investors to whom partial amounts were paid earlier and are entitled to receive additional amounts. <br /><br /> Of 2.58 lakh investors, 1.15 lakh investors would be paid the eligible amount in full and the remaining 1.43 lakh investors would be paid in part. <br /><br /> Sebi said that wherever the bank details of the eligible investors are available, the amount is being credited to their bank accounts with an intimation to the investors. In cases where bank details are not available, payment warrants are being sent to the last known address of the investors.

You Searched For "Supreme Court of India" and got 4 results

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

BI India Bureau

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

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

PTI

IPO irregularities: Sebi initiates third tranche of distribution of disgorged amount to 2.58 lakh investors

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides