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

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

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

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

Having won the Delhi assembly election by a grand majority last month, the Aam Admi Party (AAP) was buzzing with positivity until the founder members of the AAP, Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, have become talking points across media newsrooms since yesterday. 
The duo have hinted at opting out of the political affairs committee (PAC) of the party citing reasons of fund discrepancy and one-man centric attitude of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. 
 
Having ignited, an inter-party coalition in a letter addressed to the national executive of the party, dated February 26, Prashant Bhushan has accused Kejriwal for "overturning collective decisions of the party". 
 
Analysing the contents of the letter, The Economic Times have found that Bhushan has also blamed Kejriwal of ignoring the party’s public stand and seeking the Congress party’s support for forming government in Delhi. 
 
Meanwhile , Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan and Shanti Bhushan have been accused of anti-party activities by AAP’s Delhi secretary Dilip Pandey in a letter to the national secretary Pankaj Gupta. The Economic Times has further reported that AAP’s national executive has authorised Kejriwal to reconstitute the party’s top decision making body, PAC. 
 
As per media reports, after meeting the representatives of a three-member panel, set up last week to mediate between by Bhushan and Yadav, the latter have shown indication at quitting the PAC. 
 
Bhushan has suggested that Delhi ministers Manish Sisodia and Gopal Rai should ensure some fresh air in the top decision-making body besides implementing some more geographical and gender diversities in the PAC. 
 
He has further demanded organisational reforms and more frequent meetings of bodies like the national executive. 
 
The financial daily has learnt from a top party source, who did not wish to be identified that “Prashantji's proposal concerning Manish (Sisodia) and Gopal (Rai) was only a suggestion and not a condition.” 
 
However, ET is yet to receive a response from Yadav and Bhushan despite repeated attempts as both were out of town. Apart from the duo, even Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal hasn’t yet reacted to these reports. 
 
(Image: Reuters)

AAP
in Trouble: Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan to quit PAC?

<ul><li>It said that the office of <keyword id="6363345" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji">CJI</keyword> will come under Right to Information act (<keyword id="6356198" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="RTI">RTI</keyword>). </li><li>This means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application.</li><li>However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. </li></ul> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of India has made its <keyword id="42759" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice">chief justice</keyword> accountable to the public. It said that the office of CJI will come under Right to Information (RTI) which means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application. “RTI office of <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> is a public authority under RTI. Judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency,” ruled SC in its order. However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. "Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness. The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you can't destroy the institution," the SC bench said. 2010 or now? This order mirrors the Delhi High Court judgement which said that judicial independence was not the privilege of a judge but a responsibility. The case was filed by an RTI activist S C Agarwal who had engaged prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan to file the case. The controversial case had triggered a debate between transparency and judicial freedom. Bhushan had famously questioned if judges inhabit a “different universe” and described their reluctance to part information as “disturbing”. This is the second important judgement that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has pronounced in the last week, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">after AYodhya case order on Saturday (November 9). </a>

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

The honourable Supreme Court has hinted that it could disallow <keyword id="102342" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Public-Interest-Litigations">public interest litigations</keyword> (PILs) that involve commercial interests so that proxy corporate wars from can be prevented in the court. 
 
In the past, PILs have resulted in historic court orders that left considerable business impacts, for example group cancellation of telecom spectrum and coal block allocations. 
 After it disallows commercial interest PILs, the court might restrict its dealing to selective PILs, which would be selected after a rigorous scrutiny process. The decision was hinted at by a three-judge bench, including Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi. The bench was hearing a petition on the acquisition of <keyword id="2285630" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Infotel-Telecom">Infotel Telecom</keyword> by Reliance Industries. 
 
"In the next phase of development (in PILs), we must ensure that that the process is not abused, only used in the fittest of cases. It must be an institutional mechanism," Justice Thakur told ET. 
 
He further suggested that a credible interface between the judicial process and the civil society is needed. 
 "How do we prevent misuse of the judicial process to settle scores, commercial rivalries," the CJI asked <keyword id="6368850" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Prashant-Bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, the advocate for the petitioner, NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). 
 
"You must satisfy us that the information, that your process of verifying information which comes to you, must be credible. We won't allow the process to be taken for a ride," Justice Thakur told Bhushan after he told the court that the NGO had so far filed 50 cases. 
 
"We must be convinced that your petition is genuine. Otherwise (Harish) Salve (who appeared for Reliance) will say you are settlings scores," the CJI said. The case has been reserved by the court for the final order. 
 
Bhushan, on the other hand, said that public interest is a hige factor in deciding whether or not to file a case in court, and that commercial interest might be incidental. 
 
To this, the CJI rejected the view and said, "When so much time is spent on them (such cases) and litigation costs are so high, we must devise ways to keep out commercial fights and business rivalries. We may end up spending precious time to only draw a blank." 
 
<a href="http://legaltrigger.com/images/5052261194.jpg">Image source</a>

PILs with commercial interest might be disallowed, hints the Supreme Court

New Delhi [India], November 24 (ANI): Hearing the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday remarked that it is easy to make allegations against anyone and opined the petitioners to show some responsibility while levelling charges against any party. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the remarks when one of the petitioners raised questions over members of the expert committee. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court about one of the members of the expert committee Somashekhar Sundaresan, noting that he has been a lawyer representing Adin various forums including in the SEBI Board. CJI DY Chandrachud raised an objection to the petitioner's submission and remarked that if one goes with the theory that a lawyer who appeared 17 years ago can now not be appointed to the committee and like this, no lawyer who has appeared for an accused should become a High Court judge. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that he is not an in-house counsel he was a lawyer and he appeared in 2006 and this conflict arose 17 years later. There has to be some responsibility for the allegations being levelled, SC remarked. During the hearing, the court also remarked that it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. "We are not giving a character certificate to anyone," SC noted. When the hearing commenced today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that SEBI is not seeking an extension of further investigation matters relating to the Hindenburg report. Out of 24 cases in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, investigations in 22 cases are over For the remaining two cases, they need information from foreign regulators and others and they have been in consultation with them, SG Mehta informed the court. The court then said that it had intervened in the matter due to the extreme volatility of the stock market and sought to know what is SEBI planning to do for such kind of volatility and planning to protect investors in cases like short selling. SG Tushar Mehta took the court through the recommendations of the Expert Committee which SEBI has agreed with in principle. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the SC that there were many factual revelations in the Hindenburg report. He raised doubts about SEBI's role in the matter and says a lot of information was available to it in 2014. Bhushan informed the SC about a letter written in 2014 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding substantial money siphoned to Mauritius. SG Mehta questioned Bhushan over this and said that DRI concluded the proceedings in 2017. The court remarked that to advocate Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. SG Tushar Mehta urged the top court to stop these kinds of allegations. The court remarked that SEBI, a statutory body looks into stock market frauds. SG Tushar Mehta said that there is a growing tendency to plant stories outside India to influence decisions within India. After hearing the matter in length, the court reserved the order on various aspects related to the issue. Earlier, the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword> (SEBI) filed a status report before the Supreme Court apprising it that out of 24 investigations arising out of the Hindenburg report, 22 are final in nature and 2 are interim in nature. The investigation was carried out in compliance with the directions of the top court's order dated March 2, 2023, SEBI has investigated 24 matters. In the mid of May, the top court gave three months more time to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report SEBI was granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe. On March 2, the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword> directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group's market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors' interests. The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as "an unethical short seller", stating that the report by the New York-based entity was "nothing but a lie". A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

You Searched For "prashant bhushan twitter case" and got 6 results

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

Prabhjote Gill

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

Prabhjote Gill

AAP in Trouble: Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan to quit PAC?

BI India Bureau

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

Preeti

Katya

PILs with commercial interest might be disallowed, hints the Supreme Court

BI India Bureau

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides