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

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

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

<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 recent <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> decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala raised a red flag regarding <keyword id="23574724" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-6A" source="keywords">Section 6A</keyword> of the <keyword id="20932920" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Citizenship-Act" source="keywords">Citizenship Act</keyword> of 1955, a provision that grants citizenship to immigrants who entered <keyword id="19911206" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="assam" source="keywords">Assam</keyword> between 1966 and 1971. While the majority ruling upheld Section 6A as constitutional, <keyword id="23584391" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Pardiwala" source="keywords">Justice Pardiwala</keyword>’s dissenting opinion suggests that the provision is both arbitrary and prone to abuse. Here’s what you need to know: <h2>What is Section 6A?</h2>Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985, following the <keyword id="20000897" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assam-Accord" source="keywords">Assam Accord</keyword>, a historic agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of <keyword id="19959299" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-immigration" source="keywords">illegal immigration</keyword> in Assam. Under this section, people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for citizenship if they meet certain residency requirements. <h2>Why does Justice Pardiwala think Section 6A is unconstitutional?</h2>Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A is problematic because of its “open-ended nature,” which lacks a clear deadline for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. He emphasised that the provision makes it easier for individuals to exploit the system using forged documents. “The open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse due to the advent of forged documents,” he wrote, adding that such documents often provide false dates of entry or inaccurate family histories. Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A has become “arbitrary and constitutionally invalid” over time. He believes the lack of a specific timeline for detecting immigrants allows for prolonged misuse, as it gives people an indefinite period to remain in Assam and potentially establish citizenship claims based on falsified information. He further explained that government records deteriorate over time, making it harder to verify or disprove these claims accurately. <h2>What did the majority ruling say?</h2>In contrast to Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A. The court ruled that the Assam Accord was intended as a political solution, and the section remains a valid legal mechanism to address Assam’s historical challenges with illegal immigration. This decision was celebrated by the All Assam Students Union (<keyword id="20938945" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AASU" source="keywords">AASU</keyword>), who consider the verdict a “historic” validation of the Assam Accord’s original intent. Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and petitioner in the case, expressed disappointment with the verdict, calling it “unfortunate.” Rahman, who has long advocated for using 1951 rather than 1971 as the cut-off year for citizenship eligibility, argued that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of Assam’s indigenous population. “You can’t make Assam a dumping ground for illegal immigrants,” he remarked, suggesting that his organisation may continue to explore legal options to challenge the decision. Justice Pardiwala’s dissent sheds light on ongoing concerns about immigration laws and their long-term effects on local communities in Assam. While the majority ruling supports Section 6A, Pardiwala’s warning raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of India’s approach to citizenship, as well as the broader implications for Assam’s demographic and political landscape. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

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

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

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

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

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.

You Searched For "supreme court verdicts 2018" and got 10 results

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

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

ANI

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

Natalie Musumeci

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

BI India Bureau

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

PTI

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

BI India Bureau

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

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

PTI

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

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides