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

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

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

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>The Supreme Court rejected Elon Musk's bid to get rid of his "Twitter sitter."</li><li>He has to get legal approval for any X posts about Tesla as part of an SEC agreement.</li></ul>The Supreme Court isn't going to step in to help Elon Musk get rid of his "Twitter sitter."The court on Monday rejected an appeal by the billionaire Tesla CEO over a previous settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission which requires Musk to get legal approval for any posts he makes on X about Tesla.Musk settled with the SEC in 2018 after he tweeted that he had the "funding secured" to take Tesla private in a deal that never came to pass.He <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-asking-supreme-court-to-get-rid-twitter-sitter-2023-12">filed a petition with the Supreme Court</a> to undo the settlement in December, arguing it limited his free speech."It restricts Mr. Musk's speech even when truthful and accurate," Musk's lawyers argued. "And it chills Mr. Musk's speech through the never-ending threat of contempt, fines, or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC's or a court's satisfaction."In an earlier filing, Musk <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-sec-agreement-eminem-quote-2022-3">quoted Eminem lyrics</a> while challenging the settlement.The Supreme Court declined to take up the case; the justices didn't list why they wouldn't hear Musk's challenge.Business Insider has reached out to X and Tesla for comment.The Tesla boss — who also runs SpaceX and X — has been no stranger to feuds with government officials.He's raged against the SEC, called Joe Biden a "<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-president-joe-biden-won-election-less-drama-trump-2022-5">damp sock puppet in human form</a>," and picked a fight this year with one of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fight-brazilian-supreme-court-justice-x-2024-4">Brazil's top judges</a>.Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that the SEC was opening up a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-sec-investigation-tesla-autopilot-self-driving-fsd-report-2023-1">new line of investigation against Musk</a>, probing Tesla's claims about its self-driving tech.That tech has also come under fire from federal regulators, who said last week they'd <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/feds-investigating-tesla-autopilot-recall-after-crashes-kept-happening-2024-4">linked Tesla's Autopilot feature to hundreds of crashes</a>.

Supreme Court gives SEC a win over Elon Musk 

Expanding the scope of its hearing in the <keyword id="19980518" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali" source="keywords">Patanjali</keyword> Ayurved case, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday took a stern view of <keyword id="20610549" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="misleading-advertisements" source="keywords">misleading advertisements</keyword> by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice which takes "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health. The court passed the order after Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they have issued unqualified public apology in as many as 67 newspapers over misleading advertisements and are willing to issue additional advertisements expressing their contrition. The bench said the public apology published in newspapers were not on record and asked those to be filed within two days. It posted the matter for April 30 for further consideration. While hearing the Patanjali case, the apex court said the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act and the related rules also needed a closer examination. It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms which have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation". "We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said. The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws. It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of Ayush asking them to not initiate any action under rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The bench also asked the <keyword id="20083252" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Medical-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Medical Association" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Indian Medical Association">Indian Medical Association</keyword> (IMA), the petitioner in the Patanjali advertisements case, to "put its house in order". It said several complaints have been made about alleged unethical acts by members of the IMA who prescribe highly expensive medicines and line of treatment. The bench also ordered impleading the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a respondent in the matter for effective assistance to the court. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd managing director Balkrishna, told the bench they have issued on Monday unqualified apology for the "lapses" on their part. "Where? Why it is not filed?" the bench asked. Rohatgi said it was issued on Monday in 67 newspapers across the country. When the court asked the senior advocate why did the respondents wait for a whole week before publishing the public apology, Rohatgi said, "Its language had to be changed". The court also quizzed him about the size of advertisements. "Is it the same size of advertisements that you normally issue in newspapers?" it asked Rohatgi, who submitted "It costs tens of lakhs (of rupees)". The bench ordered that the apology published be filed on record and added it wanted to see the actual advertisement published in newspapers. "The said advertisements are not on record. It is submitted that the same have been collated and shall be filed in the course of the day with copies to counsel for the parties. Needful shall be done within two days with copies to counsel for the parties," it said. The counsel said additional advertisement shall be issued by Ramdev and Balkrishna tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part. The bench said it was necessary to implead the three central ministries in order to examine the steps taken to prevent the abuse of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act. It said these ministries shall file affidavits enunciating the action they have taken to prevent the misuse/abuse of these statutes along with the relevant data since 2018. The bench said licencing authorities of all states and UTs shall also be impleaded as co-respondents in the matter. The bench told the IMA's counsel that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali, "the other four fingers are also pointing at you (IMA)". On April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank">Google Pixel 8a may be more expensive than its predecessor, as per a new leak</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank">Best smartphones under ₹25,000 in India</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank">At 17, Indian chess prodigy D Gukesh becomes youngest challenger for World Championship</a>

You Searched For "supreme court judgements 2018" and got 7 results

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

Natalie Musumeci

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

BI India Bureau

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

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

PTI

Supreme Court gives SEC a win over Elon Musk

Geoff Weiss

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides