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>With Trump's victory and upcoming GOP control of the Senate, the Supreme Court looms large.</li><li>Trump appointed a third of the current Supreme Court in just one term.</li></ul>During Donald Trump's first term as president, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, giving it a 6-3 conservative supermajority.His Supreme Court appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — later voted to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">overturn</a> Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had afforded women a constitutional right to an abortion.With Trump having <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wins-presidential-election-race-2024-11">won a second term</a> in office, he now has the potential to further shape the court in ways that no other president has done in modern times.<h2 id="52e7d3b8-38b3-4103-addf-05a14a7d9c87">Trump's second term gives Thomas and Alito a chance to retire</h2><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-win-senate-election-majority-election-2024-11">Republicans won a majority in the US Senate</a> alongside Trump's victory, which means that they'll be working in tandem should a vacancy arise on the court in Trump's second term.Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, are two of the most stalwart conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while there's always a chance that a justice can step down from their post, both Thomas and Alito have been institutions on the court for years.Thomas was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and has served on the body since 1991. Meanwhile, Alito was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and took his seat on the court in 2006.There's no indication that either man is retiring from the bench. But Republicans will be in the driver's seat to make an appointment should either man step down over the next four years.Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider that Thomas is a figure who might step down."If I'm Clarence Thomas, I'm thinking now is a good time to retire," he said. "He's been on the court for a long time. His legacy is frankly mixed at this point between his wife's involvement with the insurrection in 2020 and his ongoing ethics scandal."(Thomas has faced a wave of criticism after <a target="_blank" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow">ProPublica in April 2023 published</a> a report that detailed how he had taken luxury vacations funded by the billionaire mega donor Harlan Crow — and had not disclosed the trips.)<h2 id="e08ad357-0202-444a-9550-87693e9d2b8c">Or the court's makeup could stay the same</h2>While Trump will surely want to make another Supreme Court appointment, his ambitions may not necessarily align with the feelings of the justices themselves.<div type="image" title="Clarence Thomas" height="1080" width="1920" msid="115031465" hostid="261" sizebytes="62842"></div>Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told BI that it's far from a given that any particular judge — even one with a like-minded political ideology — will step down because of Trump's election."I think they're independent-minded and they're not just going to resign because of Trump," he said. "They like what they're doing."Tobias also noted that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/election-results-trump-harris-presidential-election-2024-11">the extent</a> of the GOP's Senate majority — which is still up in the air — could make a big difference in what kind of jurist could actually win confirmation."Best-case scenario it may be 55-45 but more like 52-48 or something like that," he said of the eventual Republican Senate makeup. "So they're not going to be able to do everything they want, and there are people like Lindsey Graham and [Susan] Collins and [Lisa] Murkowski who may not go along on someone that's too crazy."<h2 id="b2c291bb-c313-447a-9514-9937c508fb69">Sweeping reforms won't occur</h2>Many top Democrats have long eyed changes to the Supreme Court, whether it be expansion or some sort of ethics reform.Biden this year laid out a plan to institute a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-supreme-court-has-lost-its-legitimacy-2024-10">binding code of conduct</a> for the court and create 18-year term limits for justices. He also wanted to see lawmakers pass a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.But with Trump soon to be back in the White House and a Republican-led Senate on the way, those plans are on ice indefinitely.The GOP sees the current composition of the court as the fruit of decades of work to ensure a conservative tilt. Leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky over the years have criticized Democratic attempts to reform the court/McConnell played a leading role in blocking the 2016 nomination of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-confirms-merrick-garland-attorney-general-2021-2">Merrick Garland</a> — now the US Attorney General — to the Supreme Court. At the time, the Kentuckian was the Senate's majority leader, and a fierce opponent of then-Democratic President Barack Obama.During a Wednesday press conference in Washington, McConnell reveled in Republicans flipping the Senate."One of the most gratifying results of the Senate becoming Republican: the filibuster will stand, there won't be any new states admitted that will benefit the other side," he said. "And we'll quit beating up the Supreme Court."

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

Is it time to change the Supreme Court, and can it happen?

<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

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

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

<ul class="summary-list"><li>X mistakenly transferred $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, said Brazil's Supreme Court.</li><li>The court demanded a correct payment before X's ban can be lifted nationwide.</li></ul><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk">Elon Musk's</a> X just botched a $5 million payment in Brazil by transferring it to the wrong bank, according to Brazil's Supreme Court, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-x-seek-resumption-brazil-service-fines-paid-sources-say-2024-10-04/">Reuters</a> reported on Saturday.This payment issue is the latest in a string of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-x-ban-feud-content-moderation-free-speech-2024-9">complications</a> in Brazil for the company formerly known as Twitter.In late August, Brazil's Supreme Court banned the platform for failing to comply with orders related to content moderation and for not appointing a legal representative in the country.The social media platform was also slapped with a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-hit-with-last-fine-before-reinstatement-brazil-2024-9">$5.2 million fine</a>.On Friday, X's legal team submitted documents showing that they paid the fines. But the court said that the money had been sent to the wrong bank, Reuters reported. The court said that the money must be redirected to the correct account before it can consider lifting X's ban in Brazil.The company's lawyers maintain that the company has correctly paid the fines, Reuters reported, which is the last hurdle the company has to overcome before being allowed to resume operations in Brazil.Brazil was one of X's key markets, with around 21.5 million users, making it the sixth-largest user base for the platform, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/x-asks-brazils-top-court-allow-it-resume-services-source-says-2024-09-26/#:~:text=Brazil%20was%20X's%20sixth%2Dbiggest,with%20about%2021.5%20million%20users.">Reuters</a> reported last month.The platform's legal troubles in the country have stirred <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fight-free-speech-france-brazil-2024-9">tensions</a> over issues of free speech between Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was overseeing the case.Musk, who positioned himself as a defender of free speech, clashed with the court over what he saw as an overreach, refused to comply with content removal orders, and launched personal attacks on de Moraes.De Moraes responded by banning the platform in Brazil, issuing additional fines, and threatening to arrest X's legal representatives.X and the Brazil Supreme Court did not respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside business hours.X's apparent payment blunder isn't the first of its kind — or anywhere near the largest. In 2020, Citigroup <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/citibank-revlon-loan-900-million-mistake-payment-how-it-happened-2021-2">accidentally sent</a> $900 million to Revlon's creditors. The bank spent the next two years in litigation trying to recover the funds, with 10 lenders refusing to return the amount, saying that they believed they were owed the money.

Musk's X paid $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, Brazil's Supreme Court said

India’s political landscape is increasingly being defined by the troubling nexus between crime and politics. A study has highlighted a startling correlation: the election of politicians with criminal records is directly linked to a rise in crime across the country, particularly in states with weaker institutional frameworks. As India's political system continues to grapple with this issue, the societal consequences are becoming clear. <h2>A history of <keyword id="23341122" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="criminal-politicians" source="keywords">criminal politicians</keyword></h2><keyword id="21026899" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Pappu-Yadav" source="keywords">Pappu Yadav</keyword>, a veteran politician from Bihar, serves as a prime example of this disturbing trend. Having represented his constituency for nearly 25 years, Yadav has faced 41 criminal cases, including serious accusations of murder and kidnapping. Despite his conviction in 2008, Yadav was acquitted in 2013, and he continues to hold political influence. His case is not unique; the political scene in states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh is littered with politicians facing multiple criminal charges. Anant Singh, another prominent figure from Bihar, holds a political career shadowed by 38 criminal cases, including murder, kidnapping, and attempts to murder. These individuals represent a broader pattern where politicians accused of serious crimes continue to serve in public office despite their criminal backgrounds. "They are getting elected, and over time the number has only been going up," remarks lead author Nishith Prakash. "In some states, it could be as high as almost 40% of people who are representing the state have some kind of a criminal accusation." <h2>Crime begets crime</h2>The research delves into the ramifications of electing criminally accused politicians. The study found that states with a higher number of such politicians also experienced increased <keyword id="22044507" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="crime-rates" source="keywords">crime rates</keyword>. For example, states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Uttar Pradesh, known for their historically weak institutions, have seen crime rise by 4.3% annually with the election of criminal politicians. The number increases to 5.8% when the politicians are accused of serious crimes like murder and kidnapping. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113692670" title="What will it take for Kangana Ranaut’s &amp;#39;Emergency&amp;#39; to finally hit theatres?" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Prakash notes that weak rule of law and institutional failure create fertile ground for such politicians to not only rise to power but also exacerbate the deteriorating law-and-order situation. When politicians themselves are involved in criminal activities, they often manipulate legal and administrative systems, further weakening law enforcement and emboldening criminal networks. The reign of <keyword id="20122630" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lalu-prasad-yadav" source="keywords">Lalu Prasad Yadav</keyword>, president of the Rashtriya Janata Dal political party in Bihar, illustrates the adverse impact criminal politicians can have. Under his leadership, Bihar’s political environment devolved into what is now infamously known as "Jungle Raj," a period marked by rampant kidnappings for ransom, particularly targeting affluent individuals like doctors and schoolchildren. The researchers note that during this time, the kidnapping industry flourished as criminals enjoyed either direct or indirect support from the state. <h2><keyword id="22404298" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="impact-on-women" source="keywords">Impact on women</keyword> and <keyword id="19900794" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="economic-growth" source="keywords">economic growth</keyword></h2>Beyond the immediate rise in general crime rates, the study revealed alarming statistics regarding crimes against women. Electing criminally accused politicians was found to increase crimes against women by 12.6%. In states where such politicians held office, female labour force participation dropped by 10-11%, as women felt unsafe and chose not to engage in work outside their homes. The research also highlighted the economic toll criminal politicians take on their constituencies. Areas represented by politicians accused of serious crimes saw economic growth lag between 2.3% and 6.5% per year compared to other regions. These leaders often misappropriate public funds, divert resources for personal gain, and enable criminal enterprises, all of which stifle local development. <h2>Legal measures taken</h2>India has made strides in identifying and tracking criminally accused politicians. A landmark 2003 ruling by 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> mandated that candidates for political office must disclose their criminal records, making it easier for voters and institutions to scrutinise their backgrounds. However, the law only disqualifies convicted individuals from running for office, allowing accused politicians to continue their political careers while facing serious charges. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113446721" title="It&amp;#39;s not just the rhetoric — apathy and jokes could be fueling a spiral of retaliatory political violence, expert warns" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>The research conducted by Prakash and his team has caught the attention of Indian courts and the Election Commission. While reform is slow, there is growing recognition that the quality of political leadership has a profound impact on societal outcomes, from crime rates to economic performance. "The quality of politicians matters," Prakash notes. "Who you elect has implications on outcomes that we care about. It could be economic growth, it could be crime against women, it could be labour force participation. These are very important outcomes for society and the economy." The findings of this research have been published in Journal of Law Economics and Organization and can be accessed <a href="https://docs.iza.org/dp15259.pdf">here</a>.

Not only does electing “criminal” politicians often lead to an increase in crime in India, it can also be terrible for the economy: study

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

The <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi party</keyword> is set to announce the new <keyword id="19919270" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Delhi-Chief-Minister" source="keywords">Delhi Chief Minister</keyword> by 12 pm today after the party's legislative meeting in the national capital. According to the Aam Aadmi Party, the meeting will be held at the Chief Minister's residence today. Following this, <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> will meet the <keyword id="20976840" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lieutenant-Governor-VK-Saxena" source="keywords">Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena</keyword> at 4:30 p.m. today and the newly chosen leader of the legislative party will simultaneously stake a claim for the post of Chief Minister. Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj remained tight-lipped about who will succeed Arvind <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword> as Chief Minister, stating only that the successor could be either a current minister or an MLA. "It does not matter who sits on the CM chair because the mandate was for Arvind Kejriwal. The public chose Arvind Kejriwal. He has said that he will not sit on the CM chair until the people ask again but the chair belongs to Arvind Kejriwal for these and the next 5 years... One of us will sit on the chair until the elections take place. It will be similar to the way Bharat ruled in the absence of Lord Ram," Bharadwaj said. On being asked who will replace Arvind Kejriwal, Bharadwaj said, "It can be an MLA or any present minister. There will be a discussion with the MLAs today and the name may be decided". Kejriwal announced on Sunday that he would resign and would not resume the CM's post until the people of Delhi declared him "honest." He has also called for advancing polls in the national capital to November this year, ahead of the scheduled February elections. Kejriwal stated that if re-elected by the public, it would serve as a "certificate" of his honesty. He added that he would push for early elections, alongside those in Maharashtra. The announcement by the 54-year-old leader came two days after he was released from the <keyword id="20147871" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tihar-jail" source="keywords">Tihar jail</keyword> after being granted bail by 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> in a corruption case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. The apex court also imposed certain conditions on Kejriwal's release, including that he must refrain from making public comments about the case and must attend all hearings before the trial court unless exempted.

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

You Searched For "the supreme court" and got 10 results

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

John L. Dorman

Is it time to change the Supreme Court, and can it happen?

Insider

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

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

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Musk's X paid $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, Brazil's Supreme Court said

Lian Kit Wee

Not only does electing “criminal” politicians often lead to an increase in crime in India, it can also be terrible for the economy: study

Ankush Banerjee

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

BI India Bureau

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

ANI

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

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides