Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword> which had upheld a decision of a Mumbai college to impose a ban on wearing of 'hijab', 'burqa' and 'naqab' inside the campus. The high court had on June 26 refused to interfere with the decision of the <keyword id="22185170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chembur-trombay-education" source="keywords">Chembur Trombay Education</keyword> Society's N G Acharya and <keyword id="22271323" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-k-marathe-college" source="keywords">D K Marathe College</keyword> imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' <keyword id="20068423" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fundamental-rights" source="keywords">fundamental rights</keyword>. It had said a <keyword id="42035" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dress-code" source="Orion">dress code</keyword> is meant to maintain discipline which is part of the college's fundamental right to "establish and administer an educational institution". Taking note of submission seeking urgent listing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already assigned a bench for the matter and that it would be listed soon. Lawyer Abiha Zaidi, appearing for petitioners, including Zainab Abdul Qayyum, sought urgent hearing saying the unit tests in the college are likely to commence on Wednesday. The top court is yet to conclusively decide the legality of such diktats issued by educational institutions. A two-judge bench of the top court, on October 13, 2022, had delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy emanating from Karnataka. The then BJP-led state government had imposed a ban on wearing the Islamic head covering in schools there. While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. The present controversy stems from the decision of a Mumbai college. The Bombay High Court trashed the plea against the ban and said the dress code was applicable to all students irrespective of religion or caste. The students, who were in the second and third year of the science degree course, had moved the high court, challenging a directive issued by the college imposing a dress code under which students cannot wear a hijab, naqab, burka, stoles, caps and badges on the premises. The students had claimed it was against their fundamental right to practice religion, the right to privacy and right to choice. The college's action was "arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law and perverse", the plea had said. The high court, however, had said it could not see how the prescription of dress code by the college violated Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom to practice religion) of the Constitution. "In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the HC had said. The high court had also refused to accept the petitioners' contention that wearing a hijab, naqab and burqa was an essential practice of their religion. "Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners' contention that donning of hijab and naqab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard, therefore, fails," the HC had said. Prescribing a dress code should be seen as an "exercise towards maintaining discipline", and the right to do so flows from the fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or run trade/business) and Article 26 of the Constitution, the HC had said. The dress code was mandatory only within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, it had said.

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible.

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> challenging a <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal <keyword id="19917023" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="defamation-case" source="keywords">defamation case</keyword> for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber <keyword id="21917603" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhruv-Rathee" source="keywords">Dhruv Rathee</keyword> in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior <keyword id="22757218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="advocate-Abhishek-Singhvi" source="Orion">advocate Abhishek Singhvi</keyword>, appearing for <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword>, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the <keyword id="20738764" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP-IT-Cell" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP IT Cell" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BJP IT Cell">BJP IT Cell</keyword>. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Trump's lawyers will fight his 2023 sexual abuse and defamation verdict in Manhattan on Friday.</li><li>They say jurors wrongly heard other accusers, an appeal strategy that worked for Harvey Weinstein.</li></ul>Donald Trump is dispatching a lawyer to yet another courtroom Friday, when he'll try to overturn the Manhattan civil case that concluded the former president is a rapist.The oral arguments will have a distinct, Harvey Weinstein-esque ring to them, judging from the court filings.As the presidential election nears, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-legal-fees-pac-donor-money-personal-cases-2024-2">Trump's legal team</a> has been rushing to erase the Republican candidate's rap sheet and tidy up his lawsuit losses.On Friday, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case-january-6-2024-4">lawyer D. John Sauer</a> is scheduled to be in a federal appellate courtroom in Manhattan, where he'll fight the 2023 jury verdict that found the former president <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-liable-rape-e-jean-carroll-jury-verdict-2023-5">liable for defaming and sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll</a>. The judge who oversaw the trial later concluded that "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll-sexual-abuse-jury-judge-2023-7">Trump 'raped' her</a> as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.'"Before a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sauer is set to argue that the jury in Carroll's trial should never have heard evidence of other alleged sexual assaults.That evidence included the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/e-jean-carroll-rape-trial-access-hollywood-grabs-trump-back-2023-5">"Access Hollywood" "grab 'em" tape</a>, and testimony by two women who told the jury Trump sexually attacked them, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jessica-leeds-testifies-e-jean-carroll-trial-trump-sexual-assault-2023-5">one on a plane</a> in the mid-70s and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-calls-e-jean-carroll-accusation-a-disgusting-story-2023-5">one at Mar-a-Lago</a> in 2005.It's a strategy that worked on appeal for Weinstein.In April, New York state's top court <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-weinstein-conviction-for-sex-crimes-overturned-2024-4">overturned Weinstein's 2020 Manhattan sex crimes conviction</a> in a 4-3 decision that found the trial judge improperly allowed testimony by three accusers who were not part of the indictment. (Weinstein remains jailed in New York pending a retrial; he is separately serving <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-16-years-prison-term-la-rape-conviction-2023-2">a 16-year sentence</a> from a rape conviction in Los Angeles, which he is also appealing.)But the lawyers who won Weinstein's appeal told Business Insider that what worked for their client probably won't work for Trump.That's because Weinstein's jury sat in a New York state criminal courtroom, where long-standing rules of evidence strictly limit so-called prior bad act evidence, the disgraced Hollywood mogul's lawyers noted.Federal court is a very different place, they said — where Trump will likely find the rules of evidence insurmountably stacked against him."It's not apples and apples," explained Barry Kamins, a Weinstein appellate attorney and former Brooklyn-based state Supreme Court justice.Federal trial rules allow evidence of other sexual assaults to be heard at civil sexual assault trials, and have since the mid-'90s, said Kamins, now at <a target="_blank" rel=" nofollow" href="https://aidalalaw.com/new-york-attorneys-barry-kamins/">Aidala, Bertuna &amp; Kamins.</a>"It's funny, but Trump would have been much better off in state court than in federal court, which may be why they brought the case there," Kamins said of Carroll's lawyers.The architect of the law Carroll used to bring a lawsuit against Trump agreed.Marci Hamilton, who runs the sexual abuse victim advocacy group Child USA and helped write the New York law, said civil cases allow presenting witnesses to "show a pattern.""That's basically what's happening — especially when you have a perpetrator with multiple alleged victims," she said. "That pattern makes a big difference in explaining to the jury exactly who this person was that was doing this and how they operated."<h2 id="a6030bb1-d60e-4cec-b214-cadb0df89332">Trump's lawyers are making the Weinstein argument</h2>The appeal is over the first of Carroll's two trials against Trump, in a case she brought under <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-adult-survivors-act-sexual-assault-trump-jean-carroll-2022-11">New York's Adult Survivors Act</a>.The law — passed in the wake of reports about Weinstein's sexual predation and the #MeToo movement — opened a one-year window where accusers could bring sexual misconduct lawsuits that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.Carroll accused Trump of sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodmans department store dressing room. The trial included <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/e-jean-carroll-witness-stand-humor-trump-rape-trial-2023-5">searing testimony from Carroll herself</a>, as well as from two friends who testified that she contemporaneously told them Trump sexually assaulted her.US District Judge Lewis Kaplan also permitted testimony from Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, whose claims were not part of the lawsuit.Leeds described being forcibly groped on a plane twenty years prior to when Trump was found to have sexually assaulted Carroll. Stoynoff, a journalist, described a similar attack during an interview at Mar-a-Lago. That attack happened in 2005, she testified, twenty years after the Carroll attack and around the time Trump bragged about grabbing women by the genitals on the "Access Hollywood" tape.<div type="image" title="E. Jean Carroll in sunglasses" height="2599" width="3466" msid="113101233" hostid="261" sizebytes="354408"></div>Similar testimony doomed the Weinstein case.New York state's top court ruled the prosecution's prior-bad-act witnesses — the trio who testified Weinstein sexually assaulted them but whose claims weren't part of the criminal indictment — should never have taken the stand.In Trump's appeal brief, his lawyers argue testimony from Leeds and Stoynoff and the "Access Hollywood" tape should have never been allowed in the trial, and they cite a federal rule that is similar to the state-level one that foiled the Weinstein prosecution.The jury particularly should have never heard highly prejudicial testimony from Leeds recalling that Trump told her, "You're that cunt from the airplane," and Stoynoff saying Trump insisted "we're going to have an affair," Blanche and Bove argue.Diane Kiesel, a New York Law School professor and former state trial judge, told Business Insider she believed the evidence met the criteria for being included in the trial. The "Access Hollywood" tape and testimony from Leeds and Stoynoff helped demonstrate Trump's "motive, intent, and opportunity" in his encounter with Carroll, as allowed under federal evidence rules, she said."The fact that you've got E. Jean Carroll saying, 'He did this to me in Bergdorf's.' And he says, 'You can do it at any time to women, they let you do it,'" she said. "And then two other women climb out of the woodwork from 50 years ago and said he did the exact same thing — to me, I think it goes straight to motive, intent."Kaplan, the judge, wrote in his ruling that the evidence was allowed in the trial under different federal rules of procedure as well. Those include rules that allow for testimony about "similar acts" in sexual assault cases."As their testimony shows, Trump engaged in a pattern of abruptly lunging at a woman in a semi-public place, pressing his body against her, kissing her, and sexually touching her without consent, and later categorically denying the allegations and declaring that the accuser was too unattractive for him to have assaulted her," Carroll's lawyers wrote in a brief.<h2 id="9d2a4051-f3b3-4d91-a8e8-951d44875e33">Civil cases like Carroll's have different standards</h2>Friday's courtroom battle will feature Carroll's lawyer <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/carroll-lawyer-threatens-sanctions-trump-alina-habba-judge-mentor-2024-1">Roberta Kaplan</a>, who oversaw the two verdicts in favor of Carroll. In the May 2023 verdict, the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. In <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/e-jean-carroll-trump-trial-defamation-rape-sexual-abuse-2024-1">the second trial, earlier this year</a>, a separate jury said <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trial-verdict-e-jean-carroll-defamation-damages-2024-1">Trump owed Carroll an additional $83 million</a> in defamation damages.Kaplan (who is not related to the trial judge) will face off against Sauer, who recently won a resounding victory for Trump before the US Supreme Court, which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-january-6-election-ruling-decision-2024-5">recognized sweeping presidential immunity</a> in the criminal election interference case against him.<div type="image" title="donald trump e jean carroll walking out court" height="2268" width="3024" msid="113101230" hostid="261" sizebytes="1216306"></div>Trump's best chance in Friday's appeal may be to continue to argue that the two other accusers who testified, Leeds and Stroynoff, described assaults that were far too distant in time from Carroll's to have been relevant, said Weinstein attorney Arthur Aidala.While federal rules of evidence for civil sexual assault trials are far more expansive, a judge still can't go too far, he said."It has to be reasonable, and the appellate court can take into consideration the distance in time between the accounts of the plaintiff and these 'propensity' witnesses," he said.Crucially, the jury in Carroll's case didn't need to reach their conclusion that Trump sexually abused Carroll "beyond a reasonable doubt" — the standard in criminal trials.Instead, they needed to find it was "more probable than not" that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll, a standard far more common in civil cases.Even if the appeals court finds that some of the trial testimony shouldn't have reached the jury's ear, the standard gives some room to allow the verdict to be upheld anyway, according to Hamilton, the architect of the Adult Survivors Act."It's not unusual that in a civil case, you'll have the defendants try arguments from the criminal law to try to strengthen their arguments," she said. "But in the end, it's just apples to oranges. They're not the same thing."

Trump will mimic Harvey Weinstein's successful appeal to fight his own sexual assault verdict Friday. It won't be as easy.

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

Chief Justice of India (<keyword id="19946587" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji" source="keywords">CJI</keyword>) DY Chandrachud on Saturday observed that it is "grave danger" to describe the <keyword id="19900770" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="court" source="keywords">court</keyword> as a "<keyword id="22227364" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="temple-of-justice" source="keywords">temple of justice</keyword> and equate <keyword id="20008218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="judges" source="keywords">judges</keyword> with Gods" as the task of judges is to serve the public interest. Addressing a conference on Contemporary Judicial Developments in <keyword id="22227366" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kolkata-cji-chandrachud" source="keywords">Kolkata CJI Chandrachud</keyword> said that "<keyword id="22226984" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="constitutional-morality" source="keywords">constitutional morality</keyword>" reflects an institution's commitment of the Court system. "Too very often, when we are addressed as Honour or as Lordship or as Ladyship. There is a very grave danger when people say that the court is a temple of justice. There is a grave danger that we perceive ourselves as the deities in those temples," Chandrachud said. The CJI said that "he feels reticent when he is told that the court is the temple of justice because the temple postulates that the judges are in the position of a deity." "I would rather recast the role of the judge as a server of the people. And when you regard yourselves as people who are there to serve others, then you bring in the notion of compassion, of empathy, of judging but not being judgmental about others," the CJI said. He further emphasized on the word 'contemporary' and said that the word itself speaks about in the context of contemporary <keyword id="22227365" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="societal-challenges" source="keywords">societal challenges</keyword> which the judges face in the work they do. "This conference speaks on Contemporary Judicial Developments and strengthening justice through law and technology. The word 'contemporary' is very important because it does not speak about the work which we do in the abstract, but in the context of contemporary societal challenges which we as judges face in the work we do. We, therefore, look at the law and its intersection of technology from the perspective of the societal conditions in which those whom we serve exist in our societies because the true merit of our work lies in addressing challenges faced by those at whose feet we are intended to serve the common citizens of India," he said. He further said that the people exist in a federal structure that is marked by a great deal of <keyword id="20051946" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="diversity" source="keywords">diversity</keyword>. "I was born in Mumbai, belong to a small village located 60-70 kilometers away from Pune. The work as judges we do in Delhi is to realize the importance of preserving the diversity of India. So how do we then dwell on the constitutional of morality? At one level constitutional morality is founded in the permeable values. The values which the Constitution, Preamble sets out," he added. The CJI said that C onstitutional morality addresses itself in every component of society. "The Consitution is not merely a dialogue between the states and its citizens, or Union or the states, or States and States. It is a dialogue within and between the societies. The Consitution Morality itself addresses to every component of society," he said. He said that even while sentencing anyone in a criminal case, the judges do that with a sense of compassion, since at the end, a human being is being sentenced. "So these concepts of constitutional morality, which I think, are the key, not just for the judges of the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> or the High Court but also for the district judiciary itself, because the engagement of the common citizens begins first and foremost with the district judiciary," <keyword id="20026571" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="CJI-Chandrachud" source="keywords">CJI Chandrachud</keyword> said. He further stressed on the relevance of technology in the functioning of the judiciary and said that the language is the central barrier to accessing and understanding verdicts by common people. "Technology can provide us with some answers. Most judgments are written in English. Technology has enabled us to translate them. We are translating 51,000 judgments in other languages," CJI said.

"Grave danger": CJI Chandrachud on equating court with temple, judge with God

<ul><li><keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> asked Delhi University to commence physical examination from September 14.</li><li>Moreover, the court said that holding a physical examination after September 20 is “unreasonable. </li><li>DU was supposed to hold final year undergraduate online OBE from August 10-31 </li></ul>Delhi High Court has <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-hc-pleas-online-open-book-examination-for-final-year-du-students-live-updates">asked</a> Delhi University (DU) to commence physical examination from September 14. Moreover, <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-hc-pleas-online-open-book-examination-for-final-year-du-students-live-updates">the court said </a>that holding a physical examination after September 20 is “unreasonable” when virtual examination ends in August. The data of the online book examination shows that less than half of the students have appeared. “End date of physical examination to be placed on record by DU,” ruled the High Court. Highlights of the hearing — <ul><li>The High Court has also directed DU to verify the total number of students with disabilities (PWD students) who would appear for physical examination and can “work out the modalities of their stay.” </li><li>Delhi University will create an email ID to allow students ``to make requests pertaining to issuance of a "request letter" on behalf of DU to foreign universities on delay in declaration of result.” The court has directed DU to create these email IDs within a week and publish them on the official website. </li><li>The High Court also ruled that DU will digitally forward the marksheets of fifth semester law students. </li><li>Delhi High court orders University Grants Commission to issue an advisory against post-graduate colleges seeking provisional certificates for admission before the exams are completed on September 30. </li><li>Delhi University will also record data on answer sheets received through email mode, ruled Court. </li></ul>The court heard the petitions challenging DU's decision to hold online Open Book Examinations (OBE), as per the UGC guidelines, for final year undergraduate courses which will be in long-form exams. DU was supposed to hold final year undergraduate online OBE from August 10-31 and the students who will be left out of online exams were to be given an opportunity to appear in physical examinations, to be held sometime in September. Last week, Delhi High Court granted a week’s time to the visually impaired student to ask the university for study material. Further, the HC also ordered DU to provide provision admission to students in its post-graduation courses through entrance examination. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/latest-job-openings-at-google-microsoft-jp-morgan-goldman-sachs-ericsson-amazon-adobe-zomato-for-software-engineers/slidelist/77585263.cms">Google, Microsoft, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Ericsson and other companies hiring software engineers in India right now</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/the-heat-is-on-mark-zuckerberg-in-india-as-facebook-and-whatsapp-incur-the-ire-of-modis-rivals/articleshow/77575358.cms">The heat is on Mark Zuckerberg in India as Facebook and WhatsApp incur the ire of Modi's rivals</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/the-top-9-movies-on-netflix-this-week-from-aposjurassic-parkapos-to-aposwork-itapos/slidelist/77548389.cms">The top 9 movies on Netflix this week, from 'Jurassic Park' to 'Work It'</a>

You Searched For "du high court verdict" and got 7 results

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

PTI

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

ANI

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

PTI

Trump will mimic Harvey Weinstein's successful appeal to fight his own sexual assault verdict Friday. It won't be as easy.

Laura Italiano,Jacob Shamsian

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

BI India Bureau

"Grave danger": CJI Chandrachud on equating court with temple, judge with God

ANI

Delhi University to hold physical examination from September 14, rules High Court

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides