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

New Delhi, Legal doyen and veteran advocate Fali S <keyword id="20668460" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nariman" source="keywords">Nariman</keyword> died here on Wednesday at the age of 95. He was suffering from multiple ailments, including cardiac issues. Born on January 10, 1929, Nariman was enrolled as an advocate at the Bombay High Court in November 1950 and was designated a senior advocate in 1961. Nariman was born in Rangoon (now Yangon) to a well-off business executive. The Nariman family fled to India in the face of the Japanese invasion in 1942 when Fali was 12. He practised law for more than 70 years, initially in the Bombay High Court and since 1972, in the Supreme Court. Nariman was appointed as the additional solicitor general of India in May 1972. He resigned from the post a day after the imposition of Emergency on June 26, 1975. In his long and illustrious legal career, Nariman argued in several landmark cases, including the Bhopal gas tragedy case, TMA Pai case, Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case and the famous case of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. Nariman, who was often referred to as the "Bhishma Pitamah" of the Indian judiciary, authored books, including "Before the Memory Fades", "The State of the Nation", "India's Legal System: Can it be Saved?" and "God Save the Hon'ble Supreme Court". Nariman received the Padma Bhushan in January 1991 and in 2007, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan. He was also nominated as a member of the Rajya Sabha in November 1999. Reacting to the news of his death, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi took to X and wrote: "End of an era' #falinariman passes away, a living legend who will forever be in hearts and minds of those in law and public life. Above all his diverse achievements, he stuck to his principles unwaveringly and called a spade a spade, a quality shared by his brilliant son #Rohinton." Solicitor General <keyword id="20038814" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="keywords">Tushar Mehta</keyword> said not only the legal fraternity, but the country has lost a towering figure of intellect and wisdom. "The country has lost an epitome of what righteousness stood for. A doyen, paragon and a legend in his own lifetime has left us, leaving the jurisprudence enriched by his immense contribution. I have always learnt something new by merely appearing even against him," the law officer said in his message. Activist-lawyer <keyword id="20027334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="keywords">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> said Nariman's death was an enormous loss to the country. In a post on X, Bhushan wrote: "Very sad news. Eminent Jurist Fali S Nariman Passes Away. He was also regarded as the Bhishma Pitamah of the lawyer community. A great lawyer and close friend of our family. His passing away at this critical juncture is an enormous loss for our country." Fali Nariman's son, <keyword id="20668461" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rohinton-nariman" source="keywords">Rohinton Nariman</keyword>, was a Supreme Court judge.

Legal doyen and veteran advocate Fali S Nariman passes away at 95

New Delhi, A petition has been filed in the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> seeking contempt action against the <keyword id="19934368" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-bank-of-india" source="keywords">State Bank of India</keyword> (SBI) alleging it "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The plea, filed by two NGOs, claimed SBI's application seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties has been deliberately filed at the last moment to ensure that details of donor and the amount of donations are not disclosed to the public before the upcoming <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="keywords">Lok Sabha</keyword> elections. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="19936357" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="keywords">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> on Thursday took note of the submissions by advocate <keyword id="20027334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="keywords">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, who appeared on behalf of NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, that he wanted initiation of contempt proceedings against the SBI. Bhushan said the SBI's application is likely to be listed on March 11 and the contempt application should also be heard together with it. "Please send an e-mail. I will pass the order," the CJI said. The SBI moved the top court on March 4 seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of the electoral bonds that were encashed. In a landmark verdict on February 15, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had scrapped the Centre's electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, calling it "unconstitutional" and ordering disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13. Ordering closure of the scheme forthwith, the top court had directed the SBI, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, to submit by March 6 the details of the electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to Election Commission (EC), which will publish the information on its official website by March 13. In the contempt plea, the NGOs have said that two days before the expiry of the stated deadline, the SBI has filed an application seeking time till June 30 to comply with the directions. "It is submitted that the said application is mala fide and demonstrates a wilful and deliberate disobedience &amp; defiance of the judgement passed by the constitution bench of this court. It is further a clear attempt to undermine the authority of this court," it said. "The petitioner herein is filing the instant petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against State Bank of India for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated February 15 passed by this court... wherein this court directed SBI to submit details of contribution made to the political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6," it said. It said the affidavit supporting the SBI's application has neither been sworn by the chairman or the managing director of the bank. It said SBI has the record of the unique number allotted to each electoral bond and the know your customer (KYC) details of its purchaser. "The requirement of the KYC is mentioned in section 4 of the EB scheme itself, therefore, the SBI is well aware of the identity of purchasers of each electoral bond," the plea said. It said as per clause 7 of the electoral bond scheme, information furnished by the buyer can be disclosed when demanded by a competent court. "As per clause 12 (4) of the scheme, electoral bonds have to be encashed within fifteen days failing which the amount of bonds not encashed are to be deposited by the bank to the PM relief Fund. Thus, it is inconceivable that SBI does not have the recorded information readily available within its data base," it said. The plea said electoral bonds are "completely traceable" which is evident from the fact that SBI maintains a secret number-based record of donors who buy bonds, and the political parties they donate to. It said as per information received through RTI, in 30 phases of electoral bonds sale, only 19 out of 29 SBI authorised branches sold electoral bonds and 14 SBI branches encashed them. "The data available as on January 2024 further shows that only 25 political parties had opened their account and are eligible for encashing electoral bonds. Therefore, compiling of this information should not be difficult as the system is already in place," it said. "It is mandatory that SBI furnishes all information relating to electoral bonds within stipulated time frame given by this court as voters will not be able to exercise their informed opinion properly during Lok Sabha 2024 if complete information about EBs is not shared with them," it said. The plea said any form of anonymity in the finances of political parties goes against the essence of participatory democracy and people's right to know enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It said availability of information about electoral bonds will give voters a chance to truly inspect, express and decide their choices. "This defiant approach of the SBI towards citizen's 'right to know' about huge sums of money received by parties through electoral bonds and corporates in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner is reprehensible and betrays its clear motive to stifle citizen's voice and right to audit actions of the political class, and therefore it should be held as serious breach of contempt by this court," it alleged.

Electoral bonds: Plea seeks contempt action against SBI for disobeying SC's order

After being pushed by the Supreme Court, the <keyword id="6356303" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Centre" source="Orion">Centre</keyword> on Wednesday told the top court that NEET-Super Speciality exam scheduled in November this year will be held as per the old question pattern. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that in the larger interest of students, the government has decided that the revised <keyword id="12191324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NEET-SS-exam" source="Orion">NEET-SS exam</keyword> syllabus will be introduced from 2022 -- the new question pattern will be applicable from next year. The bench replied that the "government has been very fair". Bhati said the exam scheduled this year will be held as per the old pattern. Advocate <keyword id="6368850" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="Orion">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, representing a petitioner, submitted that this should not in any way imply that the court is accepting the revised pattern exam for the next year. The bench recorded that the Centre states that decision has been taken in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC) and National Board of Examinations (NBE) and taking note of students' interest who would have commenced preparation for NEET-SS, before the change of pattern was notified. The bench said the Centre has stated that the modified pattern will be in effect from academic year 2022-23. "Since the grievance addressed under Article 32, and in these circumstances petitions under Article 32 are disposed of", said the bench. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court pulling up the Centre on the changes in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Super Specialty (NEET-SS) 2021 pattern, said the impression and message which will go out is that the medical education and medical regulation in the country has become a business and it appears the entire haste is for filling the vacant seats. On the aspect of syllabus change, the bench told the NBE counsel, "What was the hurry. You have an examination pattern which had been going on from 2018 to 2020." The top court said: "The impression we get is that the medical education has become a business and medical regulation has also become a business". The bench also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna said this would become a tragedy for the medical education in the country. Defending the pattern change, the Centre had proposed deferring the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (<keyword id="6361994" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="neet" source="Orion">NEET</keyword>) Super Speciality exam for 2021 by a period of two months. The top court was hearing a plea by Prateek Rastogi and 40 postgraduate qualified doctors, who challenged the abrupt last-minute changes, contending that they were made to favour the general medicine candidates. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/how-to-pay-less-for-your-next-amazon-order/articleshow/86802544.cms">Amazon Great Indian Festival 2021: Use diamonds to get additional discount/benefits on your orders</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/reliance-jio-network-down-in-india-no-internet-no-calls/articleshow/86802857.cms">#JioDown: Reliance Jio network goes down in certain circles, users report they cannot use internet or make calls</a>

NEET-Super Speciality exam to be held as per old question pattern, Centre tells Supreme Court

<ul><li>The <keyword id="3457213" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="internet-freedom-foundation">Internet Freedom Foundation</keyword> (IFF) wants Twitter to explain why it removed Prashant Bushan’s controversial tweets even though no legal request was issued to that effect. </li><li>According to the internet rights body, Twitter’s ‘proactively’ removal amounts to an impediment of the right to free speech and freedom of expression.</li><li>For Twitter, removing Bhushan’s tweet led to an acquittal from the case.</li></ul>Twitter may have wrangled itself free from the clutches of India’s <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> by removing activist and lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>’s tweets from the social networking platform, but there are others who believe that the social networking giant has some explaining to do. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77649463" title="Prashant Bhushan rejects Supreme Court's offer to delay sentence but is given two to three days to reconsider statement" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an internet rights body, has written to Twitter questioning its move to ‘proactively’ remove Bhushan’s tweets from the platform without any directive being issued to that effect by the courts. That too before any decision was made on whether Bhushan is ‘guilty of contempt’. "Twitter is committed to defending and protecting freedom of expression in India and around the globe. Nonetheless, Twitter endeavors at all times to comply with local law and Twitter’s action in this case is consistent with local legal standard," the social networking platform said with respect to IFF's letter. Removing the tweets led to the Supreme Court acquitting Twitter from Bhushan’s case ruling that, “The intention of <keyword id="749437" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Twitter-India">Twitter India</keyword> would not be considered against the court.” <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77107560" title="Tweets criticising India's Supreme Court get tagged as 'hate speech' and incur the judge's wrath ⁠— Twitter caught in the crossfire" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> Others see it as an abuse of power. “By proactively censoring online content in the absence of any direction from a court mandating the same, Twitter’s actions in the case against Bhushan have set a dangerous precedent for free speech,” said <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Gow1p29T-4_ODJJBKvG47L1NZ78dAlwRMNGNzf1rHJA/viewform?edit_requested=true">IFF’s letter to Twitter.</a> Twitter jumps the gun The Twitter feud in India stems from two tweets that Bhushan put out criticising the Chief Justice of India, Ashok Bhushan, and the Indian judiciary. Twitter was called upon to explain why the tweets were not taken down. Defending Twitter India, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, explained that necessary instructions need to be given to Twitter for them to take down the tweet. He added that the proper authority to address the issue lies with Twitter’s global office in California — not India. “The issuance of notice by the Supreme Court does not amount to a determination of illegality in any way,” explains IFF’s letter. However, before the second hearing, the tweets disappeared from the platform and was replaced with the message, “This Tweet from @pbhushan1 has been withheld in response to a legal demand.” This even as IFF asserts that no legal demand was filed. “The removal of the actual tweets from Twitter’s platform does not serve any purpose except erasure of the historical record, especially in the absence of a clear and specific judicial direction requiring the same,” says the advocacy group’s letter. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77539437" title="Supreme Court wields the ‘iron hand’ in holding Prashant Bhushan guilty for tweets critical of judiciary and chief justice" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The letter is led by Bhushan’s lawyer, Dushyant Dave and has a 100 signatories so far. According to the social network's latest Transparency Report, India already ranks fifth-highest in terms of removal requests globally after Japan, Russia, Turkey, and South Korea. Updated: Earlier version did not include Twitter's comment on IFF's letter. Countries ahead of India in terms of removal requests also was not included. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/google-eyes-indias-sharechat-as-microsoft-goes-after-tiktok-in-the-us-heres-why-it-makes-sense/articleshow/77667345.cms">Google eyes India’s ShareChat as Microsoft goes after TikTok in the US — here’s why it makes sense</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/gmail-down-users-report-being-unable-to-send-emails-and-attach-files/articleshow/77648762.cms">Gmail is working again — Google fixes issue without explaining what went wrong</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/space/news/isro-chandrayaan-2-identifies-craters-that-may-have-water-after-mapping-4-million-square-kilometres-of-the-moon-in-its-first-year/slidelist/77667105.cms">ISRO’s Chandrayaan 2 identifies craters that may have water after mapping 4 million square kilometres of the Moon in its first year</a>

Twitter's decision to 'proactively' remove Prashant Bhushan's tweets opposed by internet rights body

<ul><li>India’s <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> has issued a contempt notice against activist and lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> over a tweet about the Chief Justice of India (CJI).</li><li>The petition, filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, claims that the tweet will “spread hate in the form of anti-India campaign.”</li><li>The petition added that the justices in India were still hearing cases over video conferencing stating, “They are not even enjoying vacation properly.”</li></ul>The latest news potboiler in India is the case against activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan where the Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice. All the fuss is over a couple of tweets that Bhushan put out criticising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on June 29. <a href="https://twitter.com/pbhushan1/status/1277483749739917318"> </a> <div type="image" title="bushan CJI tweet" msid="77107652" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Prashant Bushan&amp;#39;s tweet questioning the Supreme Court&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> <div type="image" title="bushan tweet 2_edited" msid="77107673" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Prashant Bushan&amp;#39;s tweet accusing the CJI of denying citizens their fundamental rights&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> The petition filed by Advocate <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-378581.pdf">Mahek Maheshwari</a> alleges that the tweet uploaded by Bhushan was nothing more than a “cheap publicity stunt” to “spread hatred in the form of anti-India campaign.” And Twitter is caught in the crossfire. The petition criticized the social networking giant’s India arm for not disabling the tweet or deactivating Bushan’s handle. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77033471" title="Twitter India has until the end of this month to respond to a plea against it for 'anti-national activities'" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> “We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of the CJI in particular in the eyes of the public at large,” said the court order against Bhushan and Twitter. Maheshwari added that since Bhushan is a lawyer — and an influential one at that — his remarks could seriously affect the perception of the CJI’s character and appearance. “Tweet is of serious nature putting a big question on the sovereign function of CJI and their abiding nature to the Constitution of India,” said the petition filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari. <div type="image" title="bushan tweet 3_edited" msid="77107695" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;The picture at the center of the controvery&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> The petitioner took time to appease the judges for listening to cases via video conferencing during the lockdown. “They are not even enjoying vacation properly. In Summum Bonum statement that the CJI is denying fundamental right to citizens is totally wrong,” said the petition. Summum Bonum is a Latin term which translates to ‘the ultimate goal’ or the ‘highest good’. The risk for Twitter In India, there’s already an ongoing campaign against Twitter. A series of webinars with some very influential people including the likes of BJP leader Vinit Goenka, former Infosys executive and an investor Mohandas Pai, former National Cyber Security Coordinator Lt Gen. Pant, and a host of former army generals have called for a crackdown on the social media platform for being partisan against India’s “national interests”. Goenka has also filed a petition with the Supreme Court directing the government to create a mechanism to keep content and advertisements on Twitter in check. The social-networking giant has been at odds with the Indian government after a slew of accounts supporting right-wing ideologues were <a href="https://www.opindia.com/2018/03/read-why-these-right-wing-twitter-accounts-are-getting-suspended/">suspended</a> on the platform. There was also an incident where <a href="https://qz.com/india/1549310/twitter-says-its-a-global-glitch-indias-right-wing-smells-a-conspiracy/">disappearing</a> likes and retweets were allegedly discriminating against right-wing voices in India. Defending Twitter India, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, explained that necessary instructions need to be given to Twitter in order for them to take down the tweet. He added that the proper authority to address the issue lies with Twitter’s global office in California — not Twitter India. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/twitter-says-its-cracking-down-on-conspiracy-theory-group-qanon-and-has-already-reportedly-removed-7000-accounts/articleshow/77098746.cms">Twitter says it's cracking down on conspiracy-theory group 'QAnon' and has already reportedly removed 7,000 accounts</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/coinbase-one-of-the-bitcoin-twitter-accounts-compromised-last-week-said-it-blocked-278000-from-being-transferred-to-the-attackers/articleshow/77074987.cms">Coinbase, one of the Bitcoin Twitter accounts compromised last week, said it blocked $278,000 from being transferred to the attackers</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/twitter-india-has-until-the-end-of-this-month-to-respond-to-a-plea-against-it-for-anti-national-activities/articleshow/77033471.cms">Twitter India has until the end of this month to respond to a plea against it for 'anti-national activities'</a>

You Searched For "advocate prashant bhushan" and got 5 results

Legal doyen and veteran advocate Fali S Nariman passes away at 95

PTI

Electoral bonds: Plea seeks contempt action against SBI for disobeying SC's order

PTI

NEET-Super Speciality exam to be held as per old question pattern, Centre tells Supreme Court

IANS

Twitter's decision to 'proactively' remove Prashant Bhushan's tweets opposed by internet rights body

Prabhjote Gill

Tweets criticising India's Supreme Court get tagged as 'hate speech' and incur the judge's wrath ⁠— Twitter caught in the crossfire

Prabhjote Gill

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides