Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court heard Nvidia's arguments against a class action securities fraud lawsuit.</li><li>Nvidia is accused of misleading shareholders about cryptocurrency mining-related sales.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case in which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-ai-employees-workers-2024-11">Nvidia</a> is trying to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. But some of the justices expressed concern over the chip giant's assertions.Nvidia petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit alleging that the company and its CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-huang-softbank-masayoshi-son-tech-stock-buyout-ai-microchips-2024-11">Jensen Huang</a> misled investors about its cryptocurrency mining-related sales to move ahead.Attorneys for Nvidia argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by a Swedish investment management firm, have not met the stricter pleading standards laid out by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit to proceed "creates an easy road map for plaintiffs to evade the Reform Act," Nvidia attorney Neal Katyal argued before the justices.The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or PSLRA was designed, in part, to curtail frivolous securities lawsuits."When a stock drops, all they have to do is find an expert with numbers that contradict the company's public statements, then allege the company keeps records that executives look at, and then argue those records would have matched the hired expert's numbers," said Katyal, who argued that the plaintiff's complaint relies on expert opinion and lacks company documents.When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what the plaintiff's complaint would look like in order to comply with the PSLRA, Katyal said it would have to answer "what did the CEO know" and "when did he know it.""I guess my concern is that you appear to be requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order to plead their case," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, adding, "part of my concern is that you seem to be wanting a bright line that says the contents of the documents are necessary."Justice Sonia Sotomayer said that she was "concerned" by Nvidia's petition to the court and told Katyal, "We often don't grant cert to error correct.""I'm not actually sure what rule we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases already say," Sotomayer said.Chief Justice John Roberts said the aspect that concerned him about both sides' arguments was that it was "a little black and white.""If I think that the positions on both sides are a little too absolute, how do you find sort of the sweet spot in terms of when the PSLRA is satisfied?" Roberts asked."It can't be just a little bit of direct evidence because that statute was intended to do something," Roberts said. "On the other hand, it seems to me, you can't insist on only the direct evidence before a complaint goes forward. So if I don't think it's black and white, how do I decide where the balance is?"A Nvidia spokesperson told BI the company "appreciated the opportunity to answer the Court's detailed questions this morning. We brought this case to the Supreme Court to protect shareholders and the economy from groundless lawsuits, and look forward to the Court's resolution of this matter."In his arguments, Deepak Gupta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the PSLRA "demands particularity.""Everyone agrees you can't circumvent the statute with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated expert opinions," Gupta said."But that's not what happened here," said Gupta. "On falsity, the Court of Appeals holding expressly rested on a combination of facts showing that a substantial part of gaming revenues came from crypto."This included accounts from former employees, detailed accounts of internal data and meetings, expert analysis, and "Huang's eventual acknowledgment of the crypto hangover, which sent the stock tumbling 28%," said Gupta.A district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.The plaintiffs allege in their brief to the Supreme Court that in 2017 when Nvidia's sales of graphic processing units (GPUs) were surging, the company and Huang "knew those record sales were due in substantial part to demand from cryptocurrency miners.""But for more than a year, Huang denied that mining-related sales were driving NVIDIA's revenue growth because he knew that the securities market looked askew at GPU sales to miners, which are notoriously cyclical," the brief says."Huang's strategy fell apart in late 2018, when cryptocurrency prices collapsed, GPU purchases by miners withered, and demand for GeForce GPUs shrank dramatically," the brief says. "NVIDIA then finally admitted that — contrary to Huang's previous denials—its record revenue growth had been largely due to mining-related demand for GeForce GPUs."Nvidia's attorneys argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that on public calls with investors, company executives "made clear that they believed crypto miners were buying both GeForce GPUs and Crypto SKUs.""This case aptly demonstrates the danger of allowing plaintiffs to guess at the pleading stage what internal company reports could have said," the petition says. "Plaintiffs speculate that internal NVIDIA sales reports would have reflected the amount of gaming segment revenue driven by sales to miners rather than to gamers."It adds, "But there is no basis in Plaintiffs' allegations to assume that this information was available to NVIDIA."In 2022, Nvidia agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $5.5 million to settle charges for "inadequate disclosures" regarding the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business. Nvidia agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's findings.A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June.

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

<ul class="summary-list"><li>RFK Jr. has fought to remove his name from presidential ballots since he ended his campaign in August.</li><li>The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied his two last-ditch requests in Michigan and Wisconsin.</li></ul>It's official: <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-rfk-jr-2023-7">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a> will remain on the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan.The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied two last-minute requests from Kennedy's lawyers filed this month in an effort to remove his name from the ballot in the crucial <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harris-trump-presidential-election-swing-state-polls-sun-belt-2024-10">swing states</a>.The denial ultimately ends Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to get himself off the tickets and may be a blow to Donald Trump's campaign for reelection — which Kennedy endorsed after he <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rfk-jr-drops-out-presidential-race-2024-8">dropped out of the race</a> in August."Our polling consistently showed that by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/states-denying-rfk-jr-ballot-removal-2024-8">staying on the ballot</a> in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues," Business Insider previously reported Kennedy said at a news conference prior to endorsing Trump.The Supreme Court Justices did not issue any explanation for their ruling, as is typical for emergency decisions such as this. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a short dissent in the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a405.html">Michigan case</a>, said he would have sided with Kennedy.In previous legal challenges, Kennedy succeeded in getting his name removed from the ballot in some swing states, including Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. His name was also removed from the tickets in Florida, Ohio, and Texas.Representatives for Kennedy Jr. and the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.Kennedy, a one-time Democrat, ran most of his campaign as an Independent before forging an alliance with Trump. While Trump once described the politician and environmental activist as a "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rfk-jr-transition-team-tulsi-gabbard-2024-8">liberal lunatic,</a>" the two reconciled their differences and Trump named Kennedy to his formal transition team.During his Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden, Trump seemed to suggest Kennedy could have a spot in his administration, pledging to let the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-views-vaccines-autism-testing-debunked-2023-7">vaccine-skeptic</a> "go wild on health."

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

<keyword id="19896016" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="new-delhi" source="keywords">New Delhi</keyword>, The <keyword id="20823401" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="society-of-indian-law-firms" source="keywords">Society of Indian Law Firms</keyword> on Thursday deprecated the recent "attempt to tarnish the image of the judiciary of the country", saying it is committed to the rule of law. A statement issued by Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) chief <keyword id="21195497" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lalit-bhasin" source="keywords">Lalit Bhasin</keyword> on Thursday said it was "unfortunate" that recently "very senior bar members", while appearing in the courts, had "attacked the integrity and competence" of <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> judges "This is an alarming and pernicious attempt to tarnish the image of the judiciary of our country, which has always stood for commitment to the rule of law. <keyword id="21195498" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="our-supreme-court" source="keywords">Our Supreme Court</keyword> has repeatedly held that however high one may be, one is not above the law," it said. The statement added, "Our society strongly believes that law should be allowed to have its normal course, regardless of the status of the individuals in respect of whom there are ongoing investigations. It is to be left to the courts to decide on the innocence or otherwise of the persons." SILF, a collective body of the leading corporate law firms, is the country's only representative body for law firms.

Law firms' body deprecates attempts to undermine integrity of SC judges

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <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>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

<ul class="summary-list"><li>House Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Biden's Supreme Court reform proposal as 'dead on arrival.'</li><li>Biden's plan includes term limits, a binding code of conduct, and no immunity for ex-presidents.</li></ul>Joe Biden's pitch to reform the Supreme Court is off to a rough start.House Speaker Mike Johnson has already sworn to fight the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-aims-rein-in-supreme-court-saying-its-gone-rogue-2024-7#:~:text=Biden%20has%20proposed%20a%20radical,a%20conservative%2Dleaning%20court%20composition.">Biden administration's proposal to rein in the Supreme Court</a>, calling it "dead on arrival."President Joe Biden's proposal, announced in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">White House press release</a> on Monday, calls on Congress to make three major changes to the high court: setting up 18-year term limits for all justices of the court, a binding code of conduct for those justices, and approving a constitutional amendment that explicitly says former presidents aren't immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.Citing "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-ethics-questions-hanging-over-the-supreme-court-2023-5">recent ethics scandals</a>" among the court's justices and the court's recent decisions overturning "long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights," Biden wrote that these reforms are necessary to "restore trust and accountability" in both the President and the Supreme Court.The Court has been a source of frustration for Democrats, with the conservative-led court handing former President Donald Trump and his allies victory after victory — culminating in a decision that ruled sitting presidents are granted presumptive immunity from prosecution.That ruling snarled the various criminal cases against Trump, who was convicted of fraud in New York and faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.The Supreme Court's two arch-conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have also been tied up in scandals. Thomas took lavish gifts and vacations from a GOP mega-donor without disclosing them and his wife communicated to Trump aides before the Capitol riot. Meanwhile, a flag bearing symbols linked to pro-Trump movements flew over Alito's house around the time of the riot; he's since blamed his wife. Despite the push from Biden for changes to the court, Johnson threw cold water on the idea immediately."President Biden's proposal to radically overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people's faith in our system of justice," <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1817938406049296725">Johnson wrote on X</a> on Monday.He continued: "It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court's recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House."<h2 id="d2e246d1-a45e-45f6-bb30-a719be625766">Amendment on presidential immunity</h2>Biden's plan includes adding a "No One is Above the Law" amendment to the Constitution, which would dictate that no president has "immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President," according to the press release.But amending the constitution isn't easy; it's only been done 27 times, the last time of which was in 1992.There are a few <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20founders%20also%20specified%20a,making%20amendments%20is%20quite%20onerous.">ways to propose a change to the constitution</a> that the Founding Fathers outlined. The first requires two-thirds support from members of both the House and Senate — a feat that would be near impossible to accomplish with Republicans controlling the House.The GOP has largely supported the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and has rebuked Democrats' attempts to limit its power.The second option requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call a convention to propose a change to the constitution.And that's just to get the amendment proposed — in order to get it ratified, three-fourths of state legislatures must support the amendment.This would also be a tough task with 23 states controlled by Republican trifectas (meaning the GOP runs both state legislatures and the governor's office) and 10 states having divided governments; only 17 states are controlled by Democratic trifectas, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas">according to Ballotpedia</a>.<h2 id="43d2ba31-3402-49c8-9577-c9bf341d2138">Term limits and a new code of conduct</h2>Biden's plan for the Supreme Court includes term limits that would mean a new justice was chosen every two years. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Biden wrote that, "Term limits would help ensure that the court's membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come."Biden also argued in The Post that "the court's current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced," and that a binding, enforceable code of conduct should require justices "to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest."The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ethics-rules-missing-word-should-shall-2023-11">court's current ethics code</a>, implemented in November, is not binding and does not contain any enforcement mechanism.Proposing both term limits and a stricter ethics code for justices would require the Republican-controlled House to not only allow a floor vote on the issue, but also to then pass it. Even if the House approved the bill, Republicans in the Senate could filibuster the bill, stopping it in its tracks.Democrats would need to throw out the filibuster — something they already lack the votes to do — to even bring the legislation to a vote.With powerful Republicans like Johnson already pushing back, getting all three of Biden's proposals implemented in the Supreme Court looks like a losing battle. But Biden's plan has already gotten support from Vice President and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris, all but guaranteeing that Democrats will use it on the campaign trail as a way to contrast against Trump.

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival' 

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

<ul class="summary-list"><li>President Joe Biden on Monday evening weighed in on the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. </li><li>With its decision, Biden said SCOTUS "fundamentally changed" the country.</li></ul>President Joe Biden on Monday warned that the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling-election-prosecution-crime-scotus-2024-7">Supreme Court's decision</a> to grant presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts" will fundamentally change the country."This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America — each of us is equal before the law. No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States," Biden, speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, said. "Today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity — that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes. Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do."The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling was a partial but substantial victory for former President <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-january-6-election-ruling-decision-2024-5">Donald Trump</a>. It determined that courts are not permitted to inquire into the president's motives when deciding whether an act was official or unofficial, and all official acts are granted absolute immunity."This a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States," Biden said several hours after the decision was handed down. "The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone."Before leaving the stage, Biden quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's scathing dissent, which read that the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-supreme-court-reject-trumps-immunity-claim-2024-4">immunity ruling</a> makes the president "a king above the law." He added solemnly: "May God help preserve our democracy."Representatives for the Biden administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Biden solemnly warns that the Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the country with its immunity ruling: 'May God help preserve our democracy'

New Delhi: Senior AAP leader <keyword id="19909124" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Manish-Sisodia" source="keywords">Manish Sisodia</keyword> on Saturday called upon party workers and people to fight against the "dictatorship" in the country, a day after he was released from jail in the Delhi excise policy case. Targeting the BJP, he also said these people are not more powerful than the Constitution. Every person has to fight against this "dictatorship" which is not just putting leaders in jail but also harassing citizens, Sisodia said while addressing <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> (AAP) workers at its headquarters here. He claimed that while in jail, he was not worried about getting bail but was pained seeing businessmen being put in prison in "fake cases just because they did not donate money to the BJP". The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday gave Sisodia bail in corruption and money laundering cases linked to the alleged excise policy "scam" and said his long incarceration of 17 months without trial had deprived him of the right to speedy justice. On AAP supremo and Delhi Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword>, who is also in jail in the case, Sisodia said he is the symbol of honesty in the country. Conspiracies are being hatched to defame Kejriwal's work, he said and added that if opposition leaders unite against the "dictatorship", Kejriwal will come out of jail in 24 hours. Sisodia told AAP workers that "we are just horses of a chariot but our real 'saarthi' (charioteer) is in jail, he will come out soon". On his bail verdict, Sisodia said the Supreme Court used the power of the Constitution to "trample dictatorship" yesterday. He said he was hoping to get justice in seven-to-eight months but it took 17 months. But at the end truth triumphed, Sisodia said. Seeking to target the BJP over the Vinesh Phogat issue, Sisodia, without taking the wrestler's name, said she protested against its leader and people saw what happened at the Olympics. Phogat, who was disqualified from the Paris Olympics for being found 100 grams overweight ahead of her women's 50kg final, was at the forefront of a lengthy protest alleging government inaction against former Wrestling Federation of India head Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, who was accused of sexual harassment by women wrestlers.

People have to fight against dictatorship in country: AAP leader Manish Sisodia

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court gave former President Donald Trump a partial victory on Monday.</li><li>A majority of the high court decided that former presidents do hold some immunity.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Monday handed former <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-january-6-trial-timing-delay-2024-election-2024-4">President Donald Trump</a> a partial victory by kicking the future of his criminal case related to January 6, 2021, down to a lower court.Justices rejected Trump's claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal charges related to actions that come under the scope of the presidency. But in a 6-3 vote, most of the high court decided that former presidents hold some immunity. In fact, commentators said that in some key parts, the ruling favored Trump's side more than expected.Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that in some circumstances, presidents must know that they have immunity from criminal prosecution; otherwise, their ability to do their job could be affected."We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote for the majority. "At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute."According to the ruling, the line will be drawn at whether a president's conduct is related to official acts. Before Monday's ruling, former presidents already held sweeping immunity from civil prosecution thanks to a Nixon-era case. The question before the high court was what to do now that Trump is the first former president to face criminal indictments.The court's decision gives presidents the benefit of the doubt in some areas. Roberts wrote that when deciding whether an act was official or unofficial, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.Roberts added that judges could not find that a president's action was unofficial "merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."The extent of what is allowed under the ruling is the subject of fierce debate among the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a stinging dissent that was joined by the other liberal justices, said that a president could order US forces to kill a rival and get away with it."When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune," Sotomayor wrote. "Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."The court kicked the future of Trump's January 6-related indictment to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now decide how the court's landmark ruling will affect the special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.Roberts and the court did make clear that some areas of the indictment could not survive."Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials," he wrote.Trump's communications with the Justice Department have been a key part of the prosecutions against him after the 2020 election since the then-president sought to install a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, as acting attorney general. Clark was supportive of Trump's unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.It's not immediately clear how quickly Chutkan will move, but it seems unlikely that the former president will face trial before the November election. In taking their time to craft this ruling, justices have essentially handed Trump another victory for his delay tactics.It's likely that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/latest-trump-hush-money-battle-how-instruct-jurors-on-law-2024-5">Trump's Manhattan criminal trial</a> will now be his only trial before the election. If he wins the election, he'll likely scuttle the January 6 case and Smith's other criminal case in Florida, related to Trump's hoarding of classified documents.The ruling largely falls on the lines that appeared present during oral arguments. Conservative justices, including the Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, said that the case before them was of far more importance than just the facts of what the former president was accused of doing after the 2020 election."We are writing a rule for the ages," Gorsuch said.At the time, more-liberal justices recoiled at the thought of permanently <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-jackson-trump-immunity-oval-office-criminial-activity-supreme-court-2024-4">placing the presidency above the law</a>."The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."The court's ruling came after Justice <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-justice-alito-blames-wife-pro-trump-symbol-flag-2024-5">Samuel Alito</a> refused to recuse himself from the case. Democratic lawmakers had pressed Alito to step aside after The New York Times reported that a flag had been flown upside down at Alito's Virginia home following the 2020 election, an established sign of distress that at the time was viewed as a symbol of solidarity with Trump's false claims that the election was stolen. Alito has said Martha-Ann Alito, his wife, decided to fly the flag upside down. In a letter to lawmakers, Alito said the flag was not intended to show support for the "Stop the Steal" movement.

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

<ul class="summary-list"><li>For months, Elon Musk has publicly feuded with Brazilian Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes.</li><li>Musk says Brazil is trying to censor X posts. De Moras says the platform is a haven for hate speech.</li></ul>X's office in Brazil is set to close "immediately" amid an escalation in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk">Elon Musk</a>'s public feud with Brazilian Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes."Last night, Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders," the X Global Government Affairs office announced in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1824819053061669244">post</a> on the platform. "He did so in a secret order, which we share here to expose his actions."The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter">social media platform</a> remains available for residents of Brazil to access, the company's post noted. Included in the post were screenshots of a legal order issued by The National High Court of Brazil, which Reuters reported threatened a daily fine of 20,000 reais ($3,653) as well as the issuance of an arrest decree against Rachel Nova Conceicao, a representative for X, if the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/did-elon-musk-buy-twitter-acquisition-details">social media site</a> did not comply to Moraes' orders to take down specific content on its platform.De Moraes is specifically targeting content posted by "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-defies-brazil-order-to-block-x-accounts-2024-4">digital militias</a>" that he says have been methodically spreading fake news and hate messages about far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro.Like the US, Brazil has speech protections enshrined in its constitution, but the Brazilian government has wider discretion to ban certain kinds of speech, like hate speech, than the US government."Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process," X's Global Government Affairs office statement continued.Musk and de Moraes have been in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fight-brazilian-supreme-court-justice-x-2024-4">public battle</a> over the requested removals for months. De Moraes pressured the platform to block accounts accused of spreading fake news and threats against Brazil's supreme court during President Jair Bolsonaro's administration, threatening fines of about $20,000 a day for each blocked account that was reinstated.X initially agreed to block the accounts per Brazil's legal orders, complying with content moderation requests similar to those made by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-twitter-no-actual-choice-censorship-governmental-request-free-speech-2023-5">Turkey</a>, which the platform has previously agreed to honor.However, Musk later <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-waging-war-x-starlink-australia-brazil-ireland-ukraine-2024-4">lifted the restrictions</a> on Brazilian accounts, despite de Moraes's threats of fines and further legal action, prompting de Moraes to launch an investigation into Musk himself in April. Musk, at the time, said that as a result of the move, "we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit."Musk wrote a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1824854726657049023">post</a> on Saturday as news of the office closure broke: "The decision to close the office in Brazil was difficult, but, if we had agreed to @alexandre's (illegal) secret censorship and private information handover demands, there was no way we could explain our actions without being ashamed,"Representatives for X and The National High Court of Brazil did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

X closes office in Brazil amid Elon Musk's censorship feud with Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes

Expressing "serious concern" over <keyword id="19902052" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="pendency" source="keywords">pendency</keyword> of a large number of <keyword id="22472776" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="cheque-bounce-cases" source="keywords">cheque bounce cases</keyword>, 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> has said courts should encourage <keyword id="20151747" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="compounding" source="keywords">compounding</keyword> of offences under the <keyword id="20905075" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Negotiable-Instruments-Act" source="keywords">Negotiable Instruments Act</keyword> if parties are willing to reach a compromise. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the conviction of a man named P Kumarasamy in a cheque bounce case, after noting that the parties have entered into a <keyword id="21163406" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="settlement-agreement" source="keywords">settlement agreement</keyword> and Rs 5.25 lakh has been paid to the complainant. "A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so," the bench said in its July 11 order. The Negotiable Instruments Act governs all negotiable instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. Compoundable offences are those where a compromise can be reached by the rival parties. The bench said it has to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a <keyword id="22472777" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="regulatory-offence" source="keywords">regulatory offence</keyword> which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. "Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between the parties, we allow this appeal and acquit the appellants by setting aside the impugned order dated April 1, 2019 as well the trial court's order dated October 16, 2012. Appellant no.2 (P Kumarasamy), who was exempted from surrendering by this Court, need not surrender and his sureties are hereby discharged," the bench ordered. The bench noted that in 2006, P Kumarasamy alias Ganesh had borrowed Rs 5,25,000 from respondent A Subramaniam but did not repay the loan. To discharge the debt, the bench said, Kumarasamy gave a cheque for Rs 5.25 lakh in the name of his partnership firm M/s New Win Export. "Since the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the appellants where the trial court vide order dated October 16, 2012 convicted the appellants and imposed a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment each," it said. It noted Kumarasamy challenged the conviction before the appellate court, which reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted him and the firm. "Finally, when the matter was taken to the high court at the instance of the respondent/complainant, the high court in its order dated April 1, 2019 set aside the order of the appellate court and restored the order of the trial court, convicting the appellants," the bench noted. It noted the firm and Kumarsamy challenged the high court order before the apex court. The bench added that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes all offences under it compoundable. "In our opinion, this settlement agreement can be treated to be compounding of the offence. All the same, Section 320 (5) of CrPC provides that if compounding has to be done after conviction, then it can only be done with the leave of the court where appeal against such conviction is pending," it said. The bench said in cases where the accused relies upon some document for compounding the offence at the appellate stage, courts shall try to check the veracity of such documents. "For the same, in the present matter, this court vide order dated March 18, 2024 had asked the respondent-complainant to file an affidavit to bring on record whether or not any compromise has been reached between the parties," it said. The bench said an affidavit was filed by the complainant in compliance with the order where it was said that the accused have paid the amount to the satisfaction of the complainant, and that he has no objection if conviction of the appellants is set aside. "Now, when the accused and complainant have reached a settlement permissible by law and this court has also satisfied itself regarding the genuineness of the settlement, we think that the conviction of the appellants would not serve any purpose and thus, it is required to be set aside," it said.

You Searched For "our supreme court" and got 11 results

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Natalie Musumeci

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Law firms' body deprecates attempts to undermine integrity of SC judges

PTI

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

BI India Bureau

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival'

Grace Eliza Goodwin

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

PTI

Biden solemnly warns that the Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the country with its immunity ruling: 'May God help preserve our democracy'

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

People have to fight against dictatorship in country: AAP leader Manish Sisodia

PTI

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

Brent D. Griffiths

X closes office in Brazil amid Elon Musk's censorship feud with Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Pendency of large number of cheque bounce cases a serious concern: SC

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides