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 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 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

<keyword id="14855943" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Torrent-Investments" source="Orion">Torrent Investments</keyword> has reportedly informed lenders of <keyword id="6360090" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Reliance-Capital" source="Orion">Reliance Capital</keyword> that it is unwilling to participate in the auction to sell the financial services company. This is likely to hurt the process to maximise returns from the sale because only the <keyword id="120582" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hinduja-Group" source="Orion">Hinduja Group</keyword> may be left in the fray. Earlier, while opposing the extension of the auction, in a letter to RBI Deputy Governor M. Rajeshwar Rao, Torrent Investments had sought directions to Nageswara Rao Y, administrator of Reliance Capital. The letter said that the challenge process was concluded on December 21, 2022, with the administrator's email to Torrent Investments confirming its NPV bid amount of Rs 8,640 crore as the highest bid amount. However, Torrent Investments was made aware that a competing resolution applicant Hinduja Group had belatedly submitted a revised financial proposal on December 22 after completion of the challenge process on December 21 and after having learnt that Torrent Investments had emerged as the highest bidder. In repeated <keyword id="1786965" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-judgements" source="Orion">Supreme Court judgements</keyword>, it has been held that maximisation of value is a key factor in any plan approval by CoC. The only resolution done for a financial services company under special powers of RBI Section 227 was DHFL which was won by Piramal Group. In that case <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Adani-Group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword>, which was not even a resolution applicant, was admitted by CoC as it offered highest value to the Piramal bid. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/desk-bombing-monk-mode-other-emerging-trends-at-the-workplace-as-per-linkedin/slidelist/98973217.cms">Desk-bombing, monk mode &amp; other emerging trends at the workplace</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/haircut-on-cases-resolved-through-ibc-not-very-encouraging-says-kotak-report/articleshow/98972743.cms">Haircut on cases resolved through IBC not very encouraging, says Kotak report</a>

Torrent Investments not to participate in 2nd auction for Reliance Capital; Hinduja sole bidder

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Trump's finances are in flux, with a massive fraud judgment and a multi-billion-dollar SPAC merger looming.</li><li>On Thursday, Trump's fraud judge set rules for an "enhanced" court-imposed monitoring of Trump Org.</li></ul>With the cash hit of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-now-owes-1m-more-in-interest-on-ny-fraud-judgment-2024-3#:~:text=That%20means%20every%209%20days%2C%20Trump%20owes%20the%20state%20another,statements%20he%20sent%20to%20banks.">a $457 million fraud-judgment debt</a> and the cash boon of a potential<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-truth-social-how-much-stake-worth-approval-3-2024"> multi-billion-dollar SPAC merger</a> both looming this week, Donald Trump's finances are in a tailspin.Shareholders are scheduled to vote Friday on a merger that would bring Truth Social's parent company public. <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="c-link" href="https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/trump-is-in-line-for-a-3-5-billion-windfall-from-his-stake-in-truth-social-eae58c9d">Trump's stake</a>, according to The Wall Street Journal, could be worth roughly $3.5 billion.Coincidentally, his finances will now be scrutinized like never before.On Thursday, the judge who set a massive, $454 million judgment in Trump's New York's civil fraud case last month (it's risen by $3 million in interest since) issued five pages of rules for the "enhanced" <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fighting-back-after-bombshell-court-monitor-report-tax-fraud-2024-1">court-imposed monitoring of the Trump Organization</a>.Effective immediately, Trump Org must give <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/more-trouble-donald-trump-company-watchdog-barbara-jones-2022-11">Barbara Jones</a> — a retired federal judge who's been Trump's court-ordered monitor since November, 2022 — specific advance notice of big shifts in the Company's assets or structure.The judge, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, had warned a month ago, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-civil-fraud-verdict-whats-in-judge-engorons-decision-2024-2">in his February verdict, </a>that there would be exactly the kind of leash-tightening that Thursday's order now sets for Trump and his fiscal babysitters.Under the order, Trump must give five days advance notice "of any transfer of cash or other assets" totaling $5 million or more, "including transfers to any individual defendant."It happens to be five days before Trump's March 25 deadline to pay his fraud judgment to New York in full or, failing that, to set the money aside as he appeals, in the form of an appeal bond totaling the full amount plus millions more in interest.Trump has said <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-civil-fraud-judgment-cant-pay-2024-3#:~:text=Surety%20experts%20have%20told%20Business,aside%20would%20be%20much%20higher.">he cannot afford a bond.</a>Under Thursday's order, Trump must also give the monitor 30 days notice of "any planned creation or dissolution of business entities, including equity ownership purchased or assets acquired by any Defendant," the judge further ordered on Thursday.There are currently 415 entities — including the LLCs holding his physical properties — under the Trump Org umbrella.The company has a dozen bank accounts, previous fraud-case filings have said. On Thursday, Engoron set new deadlines for Trump sharing the monthly statements for these bank accounts with the monitor.Effective immediately, "the Trump Organization shall provide copies of monthly bank statements for all bank or brokerage accounts of the Trust within five business days of the end of each month," Engoron ordered.The "Trust" is a reference to the Donald J. Trust Revocable Trust, which holds all of Trump Org's assets and for which Trump is the sole beneficiary.The judge also ordered on Thursday that Trump foot the bill for the additional staff needed for this extra monitoring. Trump has already been paying for the team Jones brought in to watch his books 16 months ago.Finally, the judge took action to prevent Trump from using the monitorship as a legal shield, as his lawyers attempted to do during the civil trial.Neither Jones nor a yet-appointed Independent Director of Compliance "shall be liable for any fraud, material misstatements, misrepresentations or omissions" in Trump's financial disclosures.<div type="image" title="New York Attorney General Letitia James attended closing arguments in the Trump civil fraud trial." height="1667" width="2500" msid="108687431" hostid="261"></div><h2>More fraud? More penalties</h2>Violations of Thursday's order could result in the judge ordering more penalties against Trump Org, the judge warned. Those potential penalties include throwing the company into receivership and the possible forced dissolution of assets, the judge said in last month's verdict.Trump and his three codefendants — Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and former Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg — owe a combined fraud-trial penalty of $467 million as of Thursday, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t0aaiBjLw8eeQkfY61er8OrjFUqxPkvQltEyNVgwx1U/edit#gid=2046816337">a penalty calculator </a>maintained by the Associated Press.Trump's portion of that total was $457 million as of Thursday, an obligation that increases by another $1 million in interest every nine days.New York Attorney General Letitia James has promised that if Trump misses his deadline for paying up or buying an appeal bond — which he's said he cannot do — she'll start grabbing assets.She has already begun to do so.New York officials have registered the Trump judgment in Westchester County, just north of Manhattan, in what <a target="_blank" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/ny-poised-to-seize-trump-westchester-assets-if-fraud-fine-unpaid?utm_source=website&amp;utm_medium=share&amp;utm_campaign=copy&amp;embedded-checkout=true">Bloomberg said Thursday</a> was a sign that his properties in the area could be seized if he defaults on what he owes the state.Trump owns a 200-plus-acre estate, Seven Springs, in the county.Last month's verdict found Trump and his top executives conspired to deceive banks and insurers through a decade of financial filings that exaggerated his net worth by as billions of dollars a year. Trump is appealing the verdict.

How NY's Judge Engoron is tightening the leash on Trump ahead of looming Truth Social merger and fraud judgement deadline

New Delhi, A petition has been filed in the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> seeking contempt action against the <keyword id="19934368" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-bank-of-india" source="keywords">State Bank of India</keyword> (SBI) alleging it "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The plea, filed by two NGOs, claimed SBI's application seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties has been deliberately filed at the last moment to ensure that details of donor and the amount of donations are not disclosed to the public before the upcoming <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="keywords">Lok Sabha</keyword> elections. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="19936357" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="keywords">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> on Thursday took note of the submissions by advocate <keyword id="20027334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="keywords">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, who appeared on behalf of NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, that he wanted initiation of contempt proceedings against the SBI. Bhushan said the SBI's application is likely to be listed on March 11 and the contempt application should also be heard together with it. "Please send an e-mail. I will pass the order," the CJI said. The SBI moved the top court on March 4 seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of the electoral bonds that were encashed. In a landmark verdict on February 15, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had scrapped the Centre's electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, calling it "unconstitutional" and ordering disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13. Ordering closure of the scheme forthwith, the top court had directed the SBI, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, to submit by March 6 the details of the electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to Election Commission (EC), which will publish the information on its official website by March 13. In the contempt plea, the NGOs have said that two days before the expiry of the stated deadline, the SBI has filed an application seeking time till June 30 to comply with the directions. "It is submitted that the said application is mala fide and demonstrates a wilful and deliberate disobedience &amp; defiance of the judgement passed by the constitution bench of this court. It is further a clear attempt to undermine the authority of this court," it said. "The petitioner herein is filing the instant petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against State Bank of India for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated February 15 passed by this court... wherein this court directed SBI to submit details of contribution made to the political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6," it said. It said the affidavit supporting the SBI's application has neither been sworn by the chairman or the managing director of the bank. It said SBI has the record of the unique number allotted to each electoral bond and the know your customer (KYC) details of its purchaser. "The requirement of the KYC is mentioned in section 4 of the EB scheme itself, therefore, the SBI is well aware of the identity of purchasers of each electoral bond," the plea said. It said as per clause 7 of the electoral bond scheme, information furnished by the buyer can be disclosed when demanded by a competent court. "As per clause 12 (4) of the scheme, electoral bonds have to be encashed within fifteen days failing which the amount of bonds not encashed are to be deposited by the bank to the PM relief Fund. Thus, it is inconceivable that SBI does not have the recorded information readily available within its data base," it said. The plea said electoral bonds are "completely traceable" which is evident from the fact that SBI maintains a secret number-based record of donors who buy bonds, and the political parties they donate to. It said as per information received through RTI, in 30 phases of electoral bonds sale, only 19 out of 29 SBI authorised branches sold electoral bonds and 14 SBI branches encashed them. "The data available as on January 2024 further shows that only 25 political parties had opened their account and are eligible for encashing electoral bonds. Therefore, compiling of this information should not be difficult as the system is already in place," it said. "It is mandatory that SBI furnishes all information relating to electoral bonds within stipulated time frame given by this court as voters will not be able to exercise their informed opinion properly during Lok Sabha 2024 if complete information about EBs is not shared with them," it said. The plea said any form of anonymity in the finances of political parties goes against the essence of participatory democracy and people's right to know enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It said availability of information about electoral bonds will give voters a chance to truly inspect, express and decide their choices. "This defiant approach of the SBI towards citizen's 'right to know' about huge sums of money received by parties through electoral bonds and corporates in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner is reprehensible and betrays its clear motive to stifle citizen's voice and right to audit actions of the political class, and therefore it should be held as serious breach of contempt by this court," it alleged.

You Searched For "supreme judgements" and got 6 results

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

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

PTI

Torrent Investments not to participate in 2nd auction for Reliance Capital; Hinduja sole bidder

IANS

How NY's Judge Engoron is tightening the leash on Trump ahead of looming Truth Social merger and fraud judgement deadline

Laura Italiano

Electoral bonds: Plea seeks contempt action against SBI for disobeying SC's order

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides