Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The case relates to IT Rules Amendment, 2023, when it allowed the government to set up Fact-Check Units (FCUs) to tackle misinformation against it, sparking fears of censorship and a chilling effect on free speech.
The Court opined that Regulation 10 permitted only Fellow Members to apply for Certificate of Practice because Fellow Members possessed higher qualifications than Associate Members by passing additional examinations and there is not only an intelligible differentia between Associate Members and Fellow Members but there is a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the said classification.
“The freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democratic society which is governed by a rule of law. The producer of the film has a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution which permits him to allude to true incidents with his perspective.”
The High Court further stated that, truth is no defence for publishing defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved.
The Court upheld the appellant’s right to move anywhere and to reside anywhere under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and justified her request for release, since her liberty was curtailed due to the order passed by the Magistrate on 15-3-2023.
In Aashirward Films v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 624, Supreme Court laid down that a taxing statute for the reasons of functional expediency and even otherwise, can pick and choose to tax some; so long as the classification is reasonable.
Madras High Court held that that the order passed in writ petition had been fundamentally modified by the order passed in the contempt petition, the effect of which resulted in a veiled attempt to sit in judgment/appeal over the order passed in the writ petition, which is not permissible in law.
The issue emerged after SP leader Azam called the unfortunate incident of 2016 gang-rape of a minor and her mother in Uttar Pradesh a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”. V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, however, BV Nagarathna, J, while agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions referred, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues.
Gauhati High Court: The single Bench of Ajit Borthakur, J., has under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, granted bail
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) under Article 16 explicitly states that Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and form a family. They are entitled to equal rights to marriage, during the marriage, and at its dissolution. A marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sam Koshy P, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders imposing a moratorium on the establishment of
Supreme Court: In a case related to PCI’s decision to impose 5-year moratorium on the opening of new Pharmacy Colleges for degree
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I. Chagla, JJ., quashed and set aside the unreasonable restriction placed by the
Calcutta High Court: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J., while setting aside an impugned order of expulsion of a polish citizen (Student) dated 14-02-2020, stating
Calcutta High Court: Citing the concept of ‘co-extensive’ rights as laid down in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited v. Union