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 apex court proclaimed on Wednesday that it is of the view that “two consenting adults even if involved in ‘unnatural sex’, will not be liable for any kind of criminal action or prosecution”. </li><li>In 2009, the <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> passed a landmark decision wherein it ruled that the law could not be applied to consensual sex.</li><li>The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and reinstated the law in 2013. </li><li>This homosexuality law came into being in the 1860s when the British colonists introduced <keyword id="6362797" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="section-377">Section 377</keyword>. </li><li>UK decriminalised sexual activity between men over 50 years back, but, like India, many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malaysia, are yet to legalise homosexuality.</li></ul> The Indian gay community may soon be able to heave a collective sigh of relief after the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> strongly suggested yesterday (11 July) that it is leaning towards repealing a law that criminalises the act of <keyword id="45200" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Gay-sex">gay sex</keyword>. The court <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-on-verge-of-decriminalising-gay-sex-govt-leaves-it-to-wisdom-of-judges/articleshow/64953750.cms">proclaimed</a> that it is of the view that “two consenting adults even if involved in ‘unnatural sex’, will not be liable for any kind of criminal action or prosecution”. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India <keyword id="6355251" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> began hearing petitions challenging Section 377 of the <keyword id="75223" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Penal-Code">Indian Penal Code</keyword> that criminalising consensual gay sex filed by a group of gay and lesbian Indians on Tuesday (10 July). The hearing is slated to last around two weeks. This group of petitioners <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/world/asia/india-gay-decriminalization.html">includes</a> prominent individuals including businesswoman Ayesha Kapur, celebrity chef Ritu Dalmia, journalist Sunil Mehra and hotelier <keyword id="275421" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aman-Nath">Aman Nath</keyword>. In fact, this hearing will be quite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/10/indian-supreme-court-starts-hearing-on-decriminalising-gay-sex">different</a> from the earlier ones in the sense that some of these petitioners will actually get a chance to share with the court how this law has negatively affected their lives. Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta on Wednesday also handed over an affidavit by the Centre that clearly stated that the government has left the constitutional validity of the law to the “wisdom of the court”. This basically means the Centre will not challenge the court’s decision, whatever it may be. This homosexuality law came into being in the 1860s when the British colonists introduced Section 377. The law essentially states that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature” will be punished with imprisonment for life. 
 
 <div type="image" title="yannis-papanastasopoulos-327336-unsplash" msid="64964419" hostid="261"></div>



 Ironically, UK decriminalised sexual activity between men - the law never applied to women - over 50 years back in 1967. But, like India, many of its former <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03india.html">colonies</a>, including Singapore, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malaysia, are yet to legalise homosexuality. In 2009, the Delhi High Court passed a landmark decision wherein it ruled that the law could not be applied to consensual sex, but that decision was only valid in the territory of India’s capital city, Delhi. It did, however, raise the hopes of around <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/india-sex-relations-india-decriminalise-gay-sex-180710214650095.html">2.5 million Indians</a> who, according to government figures from 2012, identify themselves as gay. These hopes were subsequently crushed by the Supreme Court who reversed the High Court’s decision and reinstated the law in 2013 after various religious groups protested the decriminalisation. Then in <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-verdict-says-sexual-orientation-part-of-privacy-lgbt-community-celebrates/story-wk3PFmNK0G2tCpBK4GyjZK.html">August 2017</a>, another glimmer of hope was doled out by the Supreme Court who ruled that individual privacy is a “guaranteed fundamental right” and that “sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy.” By doing this it essentially reversed its own ruling against gay sex.

The Supreme Court of India is veering towards legalizing gay sex

<keyword id="6354756" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, had claimed to act as an association, but the claim has been rejected by the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword>. It added that the board, which is a monopoly holding full sway over the game of cricket, can’t at the same time claim the right to be a free private association under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution with no concomitant obligations. 
 
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifullah said that the BCCI and its member associations should fall in line with the recommendations made by Justice Lodha committee. 
 
However, on behalf of member associations of the BCCI, advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind P Datar have opposed the idea of one association, one vote, as was proposed by the Lodha panel. 
 
"You are discharging a public duty. In doing so, can you discriminate? You have full sway over cricket in the country. You also seem to have some kind of state patronage, otherwise the state would have regulated you," Justice Thakur said. 
 
The CJI had said this after Datar had argued for the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association's right to conduct its own affairs, acting as a free association. 
 
"No one can play cricket without being on the BCCI's right hand side. You have a monopoly. You also have a full sway over membership," Justice Thakur said. 
 
He said, "You are not giving up this right to control cricket. You are insisting that you can select team India, the Ranji teams. In that case can you say I will only associate with one body and not the other? Can you say I will take in one association and not the other? You have to let everyone in and give them equal opportunities." 
 
The CJI also added that the Lodha panel measures don’t suggest any restriction of the rights of the BCCI or its member associations, but in fact, they were only proposals to open up membership to more regions and people. 
 
"Cricket is a game of glamour. Every other youngster is aspiring to become Dhonis and Kohlis. The associations must also fall in line and accept these reforms," he said. 
 
Moreover, the CJI added that even the International Cricket Council had a one nation, one vote policy. "Sri Lanka is just the half of Delhi. Don't you think in ICC regardless of population, different countries have one vote? If it can work with the international body can't it work for BCCI?" he said. 
 
<a href="http://www.clipper28.com/images/Sep_2015/24-09-2015/sc-or-bcci.jpg">Image source</a>

BCCI can’t claim to act as an association, says the Supreme Court of India

<ul><li>The 5-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> ruled that women can now enter <keyword id="28504" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kerala">Kerala</keyword>’s <keyword id="6384180" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="sabarimala">Sabarimala</keyword> temple, irrespective of their age.</li><li>The verdict stated that the tradition violated the right of Hindu women to practice their religion.</li><li>The bench also said, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 put patriarchy in religion above the right to pray, which is stated in Article 25 of the Indian constitution. </li></ul>In another landmark verdict this week, the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> ended the centuries-old tradition of women not being able to enter Kerala’s most well-known temple, the Sabarimala temple, if they were between the ages of 10 to 50. Petitioners had challenged the Kerala High Court’s decision that only the tantri or priest had the power to decide on traditions. The <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-kerala-5377598/?#liveblogstart">five-judge Constitutional bench</a> that included Chief Justice Dipak Misra, R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and <keyword id="854247" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indu-Malhotra">Indu Malhotra</keyword>, ruled that the tradition enforced patriarchy in religion and could not be allowed to trump women’s right to pray. Not a unanimous decision Justice Indu Malhotra was the only judge on the bend to vote against the petition. She stated that rational arguments cannot be applied to matters of religion and that religious practices are more complex than the right to equality. She added that Article 25 of the Indian constitution already protects the Sabarimala shrine and its deity. While Article 14 stresses the right of all individuals to be equal in the eye of the law, constitutional morality also accounts for everyone being allowed to practise their beliefs. Even if those beliefs are biased towards one gender. That being said, Justice Nariman expressed that the rule actually violates Article 25 by not extending the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion to women. The management of the Sabarimala temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has already announced that they will be filing to review the petition. The president of TDB, A Padmakumar, stated that he would be enlisting the help of other religious heads to push this forward. The custodians of the temple, the Pandalam royal family, also expressed their disappointment in the verdict.

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

<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

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. In a statement, IAMAI advised Google not to delist any apps from Google Play. "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. 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. 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. "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. 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". 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. "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

<keyword id="7160701" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-year-2018">The year 2018</keyword> saw the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> pass some pivotal judgements that have borne in favour of equality. Under the umbrella of Justice Dipak Misra, the judgements have sparked debate, joy and also anger. The Supreme Court verdict on decriminalising homosexuality allowing the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple in the year 2018, while appreciated, were also judgements that were widely debated. The controversy surrounding the Aadhaar Act was also put to rest with Sections 33(2), 47 and 57 being struck down. The primary concern of citizens was abated with private entities no longer being allowed to demand Aadhaar data and the national security exception being revoked. Here are the some of the major verdicts passed down by the <keyword id="7160700" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-in-the-year-2018">Supreme Court in the year 2018</keyword>:

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Soon after the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> struck down the draconian <keyword id="1468187" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="section-66-A">Section 66 A</keyword> of the <keyword id="6379296" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="IT-Act">IT Act</keyword> in its entirety, <keyword id="6354616" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Twitter">twitter</keyword> is abuzz with #Sec66A tweets. As we write this article, over 4,000 tweets have been shared so far in the last one hour. <keyword id="1315908" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Twitteratis">Twitteratis</keyword> are celebrating this landmark judgment on twitter and posting their reactions with FULL FREEDOM now—after all, Indians can now have the right to enjoy free speech on Internet. 
 
We bring to you some of the interesting tweets from some of the prominent names in India. Check’em out! 
 
Political Reactions 
 
Doesn’t matter if they were the recent custodians of the law or supported it, Indian national political parties have joined the celebrations on twitter too. 
 
Celeb Reactions 
 
 
(Lead image credit: www.newslaundry.com)

Twitterati celebrate as Supreme Court Strikes down #Sec66A

The bankruptcy of Essar Steel had put India’s nascent bankruptcy laws to test and the final word on that is out. In its latest verdict, the Supreme Court of India has said that banks can decide how to distribute the $6 billion from the sale of the company to <keyword id="47654" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ArcelorMittal">ArcelorMittal</keyword>, a multinational steel giant owned by billionaire steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal. This verdict from the Supreme Court also said that the bankruptcy courts are free to relax the 330-day deadline set by the law to resolve insolvency cases. In an interview before the latest judgement from the Supreme Court, MS Sahoo, the Chairman of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, told Business Insider that India’s laws indeed have a tight deadline. “The focus is that the process should be completed in a time bound manner, and please note that no where in the world is there this kind of timeline,” Sahoo said in an exclusive interview. The entire transcript of the interview <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/economy/news/exclusive-interview-with-ms-sahoo-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-chairman/articleshow/72069548.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">here</a>. You can watch the entire interview here: 
 <div type="Video" msid="72073026" hostid="261" title="“Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline,” says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo" thumbUrl="https://denmark.timesinternet.in/cmslite/api/app/images.jpg?msid=72073026"></div>

Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline, says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo

<ul><li>The Supreme Court of <keyword id="3658" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="India">India</keyword> lifted the ban imposed on setting up a dance bar in <keyword id="13126" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Maharashtra">Maharashtra</keyword> today. </li><li>It also ruled against other proposed restrictions like the installation of cameras inside the bar. </li><li>The decision came in when a petition challenged the strict norms levied by state government that made it almost impossible to set up and run a dance bar in Maharashtra. </li></ul>The ban on <keyword id="94250" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dance-bars">dance bars</keyword> in India’s financial capital has been lifted by the country’s Supreme Court. The government of Maharashtra can regulate these bars but cannot fully prohibit them, the court said in its verdict. The court ruling also overturned installation of cameras inside the bars as it invades privacy. The Supreme Court has also removed the mandatory condition of dance bars to be one kilometer away from religious places or school citing it ‘unreasonable’ for <keyword id="6358070" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="mumbai">Mumbai</keyword>. In 2018, some of the dance bars in Maharashtra that were already carrying out business were exempted from certain clauses of the new law imposed by the state government.The top court said the laws were ‘weird and ridiculous’. Mumbai has a long history of ‘dance bars’ — bars that had women entertaining guests with private or group dancing in exchange for tips. However, these were banned in 2005 by the state government, mostly on moral grounds, but was later struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2013. However, the then Congress government brought an ordinance to implement the ban. Today’s verdict from the SC allows aspiring dance bar operators to procure a licence from the state government and operate under stricter regulations. While the government took a <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/maharashtra-dance-bar-sc-142189">moral high ground</a> on the debate over dance bars, a union of the dancers, called the 'Bharatiya Bargirls Union’ complained that the ban was not amoral or hurting their dignity, it only took away a source of livelihood. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/miscellaneous/10-landmark-judgements-indias-supreme-court-passed-in-2018/slidelist/67254190.cms">10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-landmark-supreme-court-verdict-on-reservation-quotas-for-job-promotions/articleshow/65981169.cms">All you need to know about the landmark Supreme Court verdict on reservation quotas for job promotions</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/supreme-court-of-india-lifts-ban-women-of-all-ages-can-now-enter-sabarimala-temple/articleshow/65993339.cms">Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple</a>

Mumbai can have dance bars again but conditions apply

<ul><li>During the Supreme Court hearing, <keyword id="6356830" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="nestle-india">Nestle India</keyword>’s lawyer reportedly said that the reports have shown that lead in the product in question was ‘below detectable limits’ in its <keyword id="411839" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Instant-noodles">instant noodles</keyword>. </li><li>The instant noodles has been in trouble for allegedly having high quantities of lead and MSG (Monosodium Glutamate). </li><li>The apex court gave greenlight to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to proceed with a class-action suit against Nestle for allegedly selling <keyword id="6369404" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="maggi">Maggi</keyword> noodles that failed to meet food standards. </li><li>In 2015, the food regulator FSSAI banned Nestle’s Maggi for six months along with destroying over 30,000 tonnes of instant noodles.</li></ul>Maggi noodles manufacturer, Nestle, <a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/nestle-india/nestle-welcomes-indias-supreme-court-ruling-in-maggi-case-idINKCN1OX14J">welcomed </a>Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday, saying that it has marked a partial victory for them over Maggi noodles. During the hearing, Nestle India’s lawyer reportedly said that the reports have shown that lead in the product in question was <a href="https://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/food-entertainment/personal-care-pet-supplies-liquor/lead-in-maggi-below-detectable-limits-nestle-lawyer/67375320">‘below detectable limits’</a> in some samples while very little quantities of lead was detected in others. A senior counsel added by saying that ‘some amount of lead is present in a lot of products.’ Appearing for Nestle, he also said that the permissible limit of lead after scientific evaluation is 2.5 parts per million (PPM) and the tiny particles can come from nature. The statement came as the Supreme Court gave greenlight to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to proceed with class-action suit against Nestle for allegedly selling maggi noodles that failed to meet food standards. The instant noodles was questioned for allegedly having high quantities of lead and MSG (Monosodium Glutamate). The apex Court also said that the samples tested in Central Food Technological Research Institute will form the basis of the proceedings. The class-action suit was originally filed three years ago, against the food makers, <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/sc-revives-govt-s-case-in-ncdrc-against-nestle-india-2#gs.KMugdCMj">seeking ₹6.4 billion</a> as compensation for unfair trade practices, under Consumer Protection Act. Following this, the company appealed for stay orders until the samples seized are tested and analysed. In 2015, the food regulator FSSAI banned Nestle’s maggi for six months along with destroying over 30,000 tonnes of instant noodles. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/now-you-can-trade-10-old-maggi-wrappers-for-a-new-packet-nestle-india-launches-pilot-project-to-fight-plastic-menace/articleshow/66635723.cms">Now you can trade 10 old Maggi wrappers for a new packet — Nestle India launches pilot project to fight plastic menace</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-food-regulator-has-kicked-off-the-new-year-with-a-set-of-new-food-standards/articleshow/67347633.cms">India’s food regulator has kicked off the new year with a set of new food standards</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/indias-food-regulator-to-launch-rigorous-inspections-on-food-companies/articleshow/67090806.cms">India’s food regulator to launch ‘rigorous’ inspections on food companies</a>

You Searched For "Supreme Court of India" and got 10 results

The Supreme Court of India is veering towards legalizing gay sex

Kavita Majumdar

BCCI can’t claim to act as an association, says the Supreme Court of India

BI India Bureau

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

Prabhjote Gill

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

BI India Bureau

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

PTI

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Prabhjote Gill

Twitterati celebrate as Supreme Court Strikes down #Sec66A

Richa Sharma

Nowhere in the world do bankruptcy cases have a 330-day deadline, says bankruptcy board chief MS Sahoo

Sriram Iyer

Mumbai can have dance bars again but conditions apply

Sriram Iyer

Nestle asserts lead content in Maggi noodles is ‘below detectable limits’ following Supreme Court of India ruling to reopen class-action case

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides