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. <h2>A wider net</h2>In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated, "Any act of viewing, distributing, or displaying child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to 'possession' in terms of Section 15 of POCSO Act." This interpretation effectively settled conflicting verdicts from various high courts, notably overturning a Madras High Court decision that had quashed a POCSO case against an individual who had viewed child pornography but had not circulated it. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with senior advocate H.S. Phoolka's arguments, deemed the earlier judgement "egregiously erroneous." <h2>Crimes categorised</h2>In a further clarification, the Supreme Court divided crimes related to child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act into three distinct categories. The decision emphasised that law enforcement and courts must carefully assess each case to determine the specific category under which an offence falls. One critical insight from the judgement is that an offender cannot escape prosecution by simply deleting illegal content before an FIR is registered. The bench declared, "We clarify that there is no requirement under Section 15 of POCSO Act that ‘storage’ or ‘possession’ must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding, and no such requirement can be read into the said provision." <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417654" title="“Learned no lessons from Nirbhaya case”: Madhya Pradesh High Court criticises lenient treatment of crime-accused juvies in India" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>This means that even if an individual deletes the material before the authorities take action, they may still face <keyword id="20554971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="legal-consequences" source="keywords">legal consequences</keyword> based on the mere act of viewing or temporary possession. <h2><keyword id="23293250" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="automatic-downloads" source="keywords">Automatic downloads</keyword></h2>Acknowledging the complexities of <keyword id="20573374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="digital-media" source="keywords">digital media</keyword>, the Supreme Court recognised that certain child pornographic content might be automatically downloaded onto devices without the user’s knowledge. To address this, the court created a safeguard for those unaware of the offensive material stored on their devices. If a person discovers such material on their device through automatic downloads, they will not be prosecuted if they take immediate steps to delete it and report it to the authorities. However, the onus is on the device owner to act swiftly. Failure to delete or report the offensive material after becoming aware of it would constitute an offence under the law. To avoid the automatic downloading of problematic material, there are several proactive measures you can take. First, adjust your browser settings to disable automatic downloads and pop-ups, ensuring you have to approve any file before it is downloaded to your device. Regularly update your web browser and security software to benefit from the latest protections against malicious websites. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113146443" title="Karnataka HC rejects school teacher&amp;#39;s plea to quash POCSO case over filming of girl students" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Additionally, be cautious about the sites you visit, particularly those that seem suspicious or unfamiliar; stick to well-known, reputable sources. Additionally, consider using ad blockers or content filters that can prevent potentially harmful content from loading. Always be mindful of any unsolicited links in emails or messages, as these can lead to automatic downloads of unwanted material. Lastly, routinely monitor your device for any unfamiliar files and promptly delete anything that looks suspicious to minimise your risk of unknowingly storing problematic content. <h2>What this means for the future</h2>This judgement sends a clear message: India is taking a zero-tolerance approach toward child pornography in all its forms, whether stored, distributed, or merely viewed. The ruling adapts the legal framework to modern challenges, ensuring that perpetrators can no longer hide behind technicalities such as the absence of physical possession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation also places a burden on individuals to exercise responsibility in the digital world. Anyone who stumbles upon child pornography, whether intentionally or accidentally, must take swift action to avoid legal consequences. (With inputs from agencies)

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

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. 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. <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?” 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. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <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. 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. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <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. 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. 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. <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>

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. 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

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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. "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. 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. 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. 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.

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

<ul><li>The <keyword id="75952" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> wants the government to explain the pricing of vaccines as it opens up the doors to everyone above the age of 18 years on May 1.</li><li>States have accused the two manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines in the country, the <keyword id="95879" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Serum-Institute-of-India">Serum Institute of India</keyword> (SII) and <keyword id="149108" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bharat-Biotech">Bharat Biotech</keyword>, of profiteering from the crisis.</li><li>While the government has asked both companies to reduce pricing, SII has justified that it needs funds in order to expand the production of COVID-19 vaccines. </li></ul>The Supreme Court of India has decided it cannot be a “mute spectator” as the number of new COVID-19 cases continues to surge across the country. “The Union of India shall clarify in its affidavit the basis and rationale adopted in regard to the pricing of vaccines,” said the order issued by the Supreme Court on April 27, according to <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1386949910847582212">LiveLaw</a>. <table style="border-width: initial; border-style: none; table-layout: fixed; width: 468pt;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;"> </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">SII’s Covishield </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Price for states </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹400 per dose </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹600 per dose </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Price for private hospitals </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹600 per dose </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹1200 per dose </td></tr></tbody></table>Source: Respective companies The Supreme Court has also asked the central government to clarify the projected requirement of vaccines as a result of the expansion in coverage. India has plans to expand its vaccination drive to everyone above the age of 18 years starting from May 1. This means, not only will the government have to ensure that it has enough doses to cover people above the age of 45 years who will need a second dose, but also the millions who will be lining up to get their first shot. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="The controversy around the pricing of COVID-19 vaccine in India" comment="subhead" text="The controversy around the pricing of COVID-19 vaccine in India">The controversy around the pricing of COVID-19 vaccine in India</cmsannotation> The two manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines in India, the Serum Institute of India (SII) and Bharat Biotech, have both issued separate pricing for states and private hospitals. According to the central government, it will keep half of the stock and the rest of the 50% will be for states and private hospitals to quibble over. States have accused the companies of profiteering from the crisis since both the vaccines are available for the price of ₹150 per dose to the central government. The government did ask SII and Bharat Biotech to lower prices on April 26. But, SII has hit back saying the higher prices are because it needs to invest in scaling up and expanding capacity in order to produce more doses of the vaccine. "Only a limited portion of SII’s volume will be sold to private hospitals at ₹600 per dose. The price of the vaccine is still ower than a lot of other medical treatments and essentials required to treat COVID-19 and other life-threatening illnesses,” said SII’s spokesperson in a <a href="https://twitter.com/SerumInstIndia/status/1385899831705538560">statement</a>. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="Vaccinations are only one of the four issues that the Supreme Court highlighted" comment="subhead" text="Vaccinations are only one of the four issues that the Supreme Court highlighted">Vaccinations are only one of the four issues that the Supreme Court highlighted</cmsannotation> The Supreme Court has decided to let High Courts have the lead when it comes to cases within a particular state. But, when a problem crosses state boundaries — like the pricing and distribution of vaccines — the Supreme Court believes it has the right to interfere. Aside from vaccinations, the apex court has also highlighted the following three issues: <ol><li>The supply of oxygen.</li><li>Enhancement of critical medical requirements like COVID-19 beds.</li><li>Steps taken to ensure due availability of essential drugs like Remdesivir and Faviprivir. </li></ol>The apex court has given the central government and state governments time till Friday, April 30, to file their affidavits. The court will be listed again on April 30 for a hearing at noon. The second biggest country in Asia is currently in the throws of surging COVID-19 cases with daily additions to the overall tally crossing 300,000 for nearly a week. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/india-will-receive-the-first-batch-of-russia-covid-19-vaccine-sputnik-by-may-1/articleshow/82269061.cms">India will receive the first batch of Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine by May 1 — in time for the third phase of its vaccination drive</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/elections/news/election-commission-bans-all-victory-processions-on-or-after-counting-in-tamil-nadu-assam-goa-west-bengal-and-kerala-assembly-elections/articleshow/82269994.cms">Election Commission bans all victory processions on or after counting on May 2</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/the-pace-of-infections-and-test-positivity-in-maharashtra-is-slowing-down-but-it-is-too-soon-to-celebrate/articleshow/82256149.cms">The pace of infections and test positivity in Maharashtra is slowing down — but it is too soon to celebrate</a>

Supreme Court wants the Indian government to explain vaccine pricing — and clarify how many doses it will need as coverage expands from May 1

During hearing a 2009 contempt case against advocate <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday observed that it is not only question of punishment but also faith in the institution that required detailed hearing and referred the matter to an appropriate bench. The contempt case is in connection with Bhushan's comments on the judiciary during an interview to the Tehelka magazine in 2009. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra told senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Bhushan, that he must ponder that people come to court for relief, and when that faith is shaken then there is a problem. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for journalist Tarun Tejpal, contended before the bench that people come to court for justice and relief. "We will come and go but the institution exists forever. We must protect the integrity of the institution," submitted Sibal. The bench said let the matter be listed on September 10 before an appropriate bench by the Chief Justice. "I am short of time. I am demitting office," Justice Mishra observed, who is scheduled to retire on September 2, citing the matter requires detailed hearing. During the hearing, the top court observed that in this case in addition to the Attorney General, the assistance of some amicus is also required. Dhavan asked the bench to issue notice to the Attorney General. "Let us leave this to an appropriate bench," Justice Mishra noted. Dhavan argued that the important question is how much of the court's free speech jurisprudence could be read into suo moto contempt powers? SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/airtel-wants-to-increase-data-prices-to-100-per-gb-sunil-mittal-asks-subscribers-to-prepare-to-pay-a-lot-more/articleshow/77734318.cms">Airtel wants to increase data prices to ₹100 per GB, Sunil Mittal asks subscribers to ‘prepare to pay a lot more’</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/india-startup-founders-are-opting-for-money-in-the-bank-instead-of-high-valuations-as-they-look-to-survive-this-pandemic/articleshow/77733965.cms">India's startup founders are opting for money in the bank instead of high valuations as they look to survive this pandemic</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/without-huawei-and-zte-in-india-airtel-and-vodafone-ideas-battle-against-jio-to-become-tougher/articleshow/77734889.cms">Without Huawei and ZTE in India, Airtel and Vodafone-Idea's battle against Jio to become tougher</a>

Supreme Court refers Prashant Bhushan's 2009 contempt case to another bench

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response from the Centre on a plea for immediate evacuation of all Indian students who are stranded in the <keyword id="6361754" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="united-kingdom">United Kingdom</keyword> (UK) amid the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic. The plea has said that governments of the UK and Germany have approached the Centre to facilitate return of their nationals stranded in India due to lockdown here and, as per media reports, flights would be operated in the near future from Mumbai and New Delhi for this purpose. The petition, filed by Delhi-based advocate Madhurima Mridul, said that the government should be directed to ensure that flights ferrying British nationals from India to the UK be used to evacuate Indian students who are stranded there and are willing to come back. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instructions on the issue and posted the matter for hearing on April 13. Advocate Sunil Fernandes appeared for the petitioner during the hearing which was conducted through video-conferencing. The plea has also sought a direction to the government to ensure that till requisite arrangements are made for evacuation, the students stranded in the UK are provided accommodation, adequate health and medical support, if needed, by the Indian High Commission in London. It said that many of these students are exposed to greater risk of contracting COVID-19 as they are living in packed hostels with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities during the lockdown imposed in the UK, which has so far recorded over 2,300 deaths due to coronavirus. The plea, filed by advocate Astha Sharma, said that the government should ensure that these students are quarantined and provided with all medical and health facilities as prescribed by the World Health Organisation. It said that due to travel ban amid coronavirus pandemic, many Indian students, who had earlier booked tickets and reached various airports in the UK, were stranded and unable to take their journey to India. "Surprisingly, India is probably the only country that has imposed an embargo on the return of its own citizens, and where other countries are making all possible efforts to repatriate their citizens stranded in various countries, India with its travel bans has made it impossible for its own citizens to come back home," it said. The plea claimed that countries having more COVID-19 cases like China, Spain, Italy, Iran and the US have not imposed any embargo on the return of their nationals from foreign countries. It said that Indian government could quarantine those who return from abroad and impose reasonable restrictions on their movement but to "pass a blanket order of preventing an Indian citizen from returning back to his homeland is violative of the Constitutional rights" guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/economy/news/rbi-is-using-lessons-from-2008-financial-crisis-to-handle-the-covid-19-lockdown-effect-on-the-economy/articleshow/75039749.cms">RBI is using lessons from 2008 financial crisis to handle the Covid-19 lockdown effect on the economy</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/nyc-virus-deaths-exceed-3200-topping-toll-for-9/11-attacks/articleshow/75037883.cms">New York Coronavirus death toll at 3,202 surpasses that of 9/11 attacks</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/two-beggars-in-kolkata-test-positive-for-covid-19/articleshow/75039274.cms">Two beggars in Kolkata test positive for Covid-19</a>

You Searched For "Supreme Court of India" and got 7 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

Supreme Court wants the Indian government to explain vaccine pricing — and clarify how many doses it will need as coverage expands from May 1

Prabhjote Gill

Supreme Court refers Prashant Bhushan's 2009 contempt case to another bench

IANS

Coronavirus: SC seek Centre's response on plea for evacuating Indian students stranded in UK

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides