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 Bombay High Court pulled up the Maharashtra government for its stand that benefits given to orphaned children cannot be given to abandoned children and asserted there is no distinction between the two. A division bench of Justices <keyword id="6386119" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="gautam-patel" source="Orion">Gautam Patel</keyword> and <keyword id="437075" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="neela-gokhale" source="Orion">Neela Gokhale</keyword> on Thursday said it expected "far less bureaucracy and far more concern from the government". The bench directed the Maharashtra government to issue certificates to two adult girls stating they were abandoned children. These certificates will help them avail benefits of government schemes, including reservation in educational institutions. The bench was hearing a petition filed by <keyword id="13894234" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nest-india-foundation" source="Orion">NEST India Foundation</keyword>, a charitable trust, which sought directions to authorities to issue certificates to the girls declaring them as abandoned children. Government <keyword id="16460443" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="pleader-purnima-kantharia" source="Orion">Pleader Purnima Kantharia</keyword> told the court that as per a government resolution, the Maharashtra government differentiated between orphaned and abandoned children and, hence, the certificate could not be issued to abandoned children. "An orphaned child gets reservations that will not be applicable to those abandoned. Orphans have no one to care for them. Those abandoned have someone to take care of them," Kantharia said. Refusing to accept this argument, Justice Patel said. "There is no distinction, at least there is no moral distinction. There are benefits that orphans will get, but abandoned children will not? What according to you is the material distinction justifying or taking away the reservation to abandoned child? What is the logic?" "We expect far less bureaucracy from the state and far more concern from the state. These children are not responsible for their condition," he added. The court said making such a distinction was entirely meaningless and it defeats the purpose of the <keyword id="178482" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="juvenile-justice-act" source="Orion">Juvenile Justice Act</keyword>. The bench further said it was the government's responsibility to look after children, orphaned or abandoned. "We note that the definition of orphans, interestingly, also includes children whose legal guardian is incapable of caring for the child. Point to be noted is the Act (Juvenile Justice Act) itself does not distinguish between a child who is abandoned and a child who is orphaned," the court said. The court directed the Child Welfare Committee to decide the application filed by the two girls and posted the matter for further hearing on February 22. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/adani-group-hires-us-law-firm-wachtell-in-fight-against-hindenburg-says-financial-times-report/articleshow/97797018.cms">Adani group hires US law firm Wachtell in fight against Hindenburg, says Financial Times report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/android-14-what-to-expect-from-the-new-next-gen-os-update/articleshow/97797127.cms">Android 14: What to expect from the new next-gen OS update</a>

Orphaned and abandoned children are same says Bombay HC,  pulls up Maha for differentiating

Mumbai, The <keyword id="48485" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bombay-high-court" source="Orion">Bombay High Court</keyword> on Friday said before it considers the effects of amended Information Technology (IT) Rules on the fundamental rights of citizens, it needs to know the boundaries and limits of three words - 'fake, false and misleading'. It asked if opinions and editorial content on any policy of the government can also be held as misleading, and sought to know if it was permissible in law for a statute to have unbound and limitless discretionary authority. A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale said this while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the IT Rules that empower the Centre to identify fake, false and misleading information posted on social media against the government and its business. Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines filed petitions in the high court against the rules terming them as arbitrary, unconstitutional and saying that they would have a "chilling effect" on the fundamental rights of citizens. "What are the limits and boundaries of these three words - fake, false and misleading? Before we get into the effect of the Rules on fundamental rights of citizens, as claimed by the petitioners, we need to know this. If these words were capable of limits and bounds then we need not go into the effect," the court said. The bench also sought to know what is construed as government business and what is not. The court said the Rules say action would be taken when some content/ information is fake, false and misleading and some authority, in this case the Fact Checking Unit (FCU) is assuming the power to unequivocally say that the content is false or not. "Having an FCU is fine but what we are concerned about is with the authority conferred on this FCU. What we find extremely and seriously problematic is these words - fake, false and misleading," Justice Patel said. The court questioned if this would also include opinions and editorial content. "I do not know or cannot make out what the boundaries of these words are. Is it permissible in law for a statute to have unbound and limitless discretionary authority like this? What are the limits and boundaries of these words," Justice Patel said. The bench noted that as per the Rules, the FCU would be determining whether a statement or content posted is true or not. "I have a problem with this. How can someone say with finality that this is false. What is the source of this power? At most the FCU can say whether the information is credible or not. Even a civil court cannot authoritatively pronounce what is true. At the most it can make the comment on probability," Justice Patel said. The bench questioned if the opinion of a person and editorial content fall in the Rules. "For example, criticism of government figures about the country's economy. The figures may come from government sources but the analysis of the same would be different. Does that make this false, fake, and misleading information?" the court asked. "One may find an editorial hard-hitting but does that make it false, fake or misleading," Justice Patel said. The bench said it would continue hearing the matter on July 13. The Union government had earlier assured the court that it would not notify the FCU till July 10. The bench on Friday said this statement shall stand extended till July 14. On April 6 this year, the Union government promulgated certain amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including a provision for a fact-checking unit to flag fake, false or misleading online content related to the government. The three petitions sought the court to declare the amended Rules unconstitutional and direct the government to restrain from acting against any individual under the Rules.

What are the limits and boundaries of 3 words - fake, false and misleading? asks Bombay HC on fake news case

Homelessness is a global issue but people living on streets are also human beings with the same footing as everyone else, the Bombay High Court said on Friday refusing to pass any order directing removal of such persons in south Mumbai. A division bench of Justices <keyword id="6386119" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="gautam-patel" source="Orion">Gautam Patel</keyword> and Neela Gokhale was dealing with an application filed in a petition taken up suo motu (on its own) by HC on the issue of unauthorised vendors and hawkers occupying the city's footpaths and sidewalks. The application filed by the <keyword id="210006" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="bombay-bar-association" source="Orion">Bombay Bar Association</keyword> said several persons live and sleep on the footpaths and sidewalks near the Fountain area in south Mumbai. The application said letters were also written to the city police and the <keyword id="53938" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="brihanmumbai-municipal-corporation" source="Orion">Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation</keyword> (BMC) seeking action. The bench, however, questioned what judicial order could be passed in such cases. "Are you saying the city must get rid of the poor? These are the persons who come from other cities looking for opportunities here. The issue of homeless persons is a global one," the court said. "They (homeless persons) are also human beings. They may be poor or less fortunate but they are still human beings and that makes them to be on the same footing as everybody else before us in court," Justice Patel said. The association's counsel <keyword id="229942" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="milind-sathe" source="Orion">Milind Sathe</keyword> suggested that night shelters be made available for such persons occupying pavements and sidewalks. The bench said that was one solution the authorities could consider. In a satirical remark, the court said the BMC's simplest solution to such challenges would be to start construction at the spot or build a Metro station. "Start digging and everyone will go away. No one gets to use the footpath then. No pedestrian can walk on it...no car can drive there...no one can live on it. Problem solved. The construction then goes on for years. It is an ideal solution," Justice Patel quipped. The court, however, noted that the concern raised in the application was distinct and not tied to the issues of hawkers and vendors in the suo motu petition. Sathe then said the association would consider filing a separate petition or public interest litigation on the issue of homeless persons. The court agreed and said if a separate petition or <keyword id="6355791" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="pil" source="Orion">PIL</keyword> is filed then necessary directions could be passed. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/indias-macro-stability-indicators-to-improve-in-fy24-morgan-stanley/articleshow/98386494.cms">India's macro stability indicators to improve in FY24: Morgan Stanley</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/greed-for-wealth-facilitated-corruption-to-develop-like-cancer-sc/articleshow/98386482.cms">Greed for wealth facilitated corruption to develop like cancer: SC</a>

People living on footpaths human beings too, can't just order their removal: Bombay HC

You Searched For "neela gokhale" and got 3 results

Orphaned and abandoned children are same says Bombay HC, pulls up Maha for differentiating

PTI

What are the limits and boundaries of 3 words - fake, false and misleading? asks Bombay HC on fake news case

PTI

People living on footpaths human beings too, can't just order their removal: Bombay HC

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides