{"id":43301,"date":"2016-04-11T12:49:05","date_gmt":"2016-04-11T07:19:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=43301"},"modified":"2016-05-11T17:57:03","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T12:27:03","slug":"pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States:<\/strong>\u00a0In an interesting case wherein the issue was as to whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant\u2019s legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment, the Court concluded that the criminal defendant in this case has a Sixth Amendment right to use her own \u201cinnocent\u201d property to pay a reasonable fee for the assistance of counsel and pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets violates the Sixth Amendment. The Court reached the conclusion by analysing the nature and importance of the constitutional right together with the nature of the assets.<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the Government has charged petitioner with fraudulently obtaining nearly $45 million through crimes related to health care. In order to preserve the $2 million remaining in petitioner\u2019s possession for payment of restitution and other criminal penalties, the Government secured a pretrial order prohibiting the petitioner from dissipating her assets, including assets unrelated to her alleged crimes. The petitioner herein challenged the freeze order, arguing that it violated her Sixth Amendment right which guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire. The Government on the other hand did not deny the petitioner\u2019s right but pointed out that there were important interests like availability of funds to pay for statutory penalties that might be later imposed.<\/p>\n

Breyer J, writing for Roberts C.J, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor JJ., highlighted that the Government may be able to freeze or seize assets of the criminal defendant, \u201ctainted\u201d kind before trial and as a matter of property law the defendant\u2019s ownership interest on such assets is imperfect. But the property in question was untainted and belonged to the petitioner and the Government did not show any equivalent governmental interest in that property. The Court further reasoned that on one side Sixth Amendment right exists which is a fundamental constituent of due process of law while on the other side there are Government\u2019s contingent interest in securing its punishment of choice namely, criminal forfeiture as well as the victims\u2019 interest in securing restitution. These latter interests are important, but compared to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, they seem to undermine the working of a fair, effective criminal justice system. Thomas J. giving a concurring opinion also concluded; the rule that a pretrial freeze of untainted assets violates defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice rests strictly on the Sixth Amendment\u2019s text and common law backdrop. Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. [Sila Luis v. United States<\/em>, 578 U. S. ____ (2016), decided on 30.03.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States:\u00a0In an interesting case wherein the issue was as to whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant\u2019s <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts"],"yoast_head":"\nPre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of United States:\u00a0In an interesting case wherein the issue was as to whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant\u2019s\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T07:19:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-11T12:27:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/\",\"name\":\"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-11T07:19:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T12:27:03+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment","og_description":"Supreme Court of United States:\u00a0In an interesting case wherein the issue was as to whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant\u2019s","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-04-11T07:19:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-11T12:27:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/","name":"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2016-04-11T07:19:05+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T12:27:03+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/11\/pretrial-restraint-of-untainted-assets-needed-to-retain-counsel-of-choice-violates-sixth-amendment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pre-trial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":32681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/14\/floridas-capital-sentencing-scheme-violates-the-sixth-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":0},"title":"Florida\u2019s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States- Holding the Florida\u2019s capital sentencing scheme as unconstitutional, the Court with the ratio of 8:1 held that the process used to condemn the petitioner, a death row inmate was unconstitutional because a judge rather than a jury was the final arbiter of fact in sentencing,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":52411,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/21\/use-of-prior-tribal-court-convictions-consistent-with-the-indian-civil-rights-act-as-predicate-offenses-for-federal-offenses-does-not-violate-the-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":1},"title":"Use of prior tribal-court convictions consistent with the Indian Civil Rights Act as predicate offenses for federal offenses does not violate the Constitution","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 21, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States: The Court in a unanimous decision allowed the State's writ of Certiorari and reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, effectively overturning the acquittal of the Respondent of the felony offense of domestic assault in Indian Country\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":215259,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/01\/ori-hc-amendment-in-the-pleadings-cannot-be-refused-merely-because-of-some-mistake-negligence-inadvertence-or-even-infraction-of-rules-of-procedure\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":2},"title":"Ori HC | Amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court:\u00a0Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the petition for amendment filed by\u00a0 Corporation Bank, represented through Chief Manager of its Bhubaneswar branch, and directed the trial court to incorporate necessary amendment in the plaint. In the present case, defendants had availed a loan from the bank and created an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6319,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/01\/30\/new-definition-of-non-performing-assets-as-amended-in-2004-in-the-sarfaesi-act-2002-held-constitutionally-valid\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":3},"title":"New definition of \u201cNon-Performing Assets\u201d as amended in 2004 in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 held constitutionally valid","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 30, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Dealing with the existing ambiguity as to the acceptability of definition of \u201cnon-performing assets\u201d in SARFAESI Act, 2002, a bench of Chelameswar and S.A. Bobde JJ. clarified that looking at the modern scenario where the NPA can be classified depending upon the nature of credit facilities extended by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":85371,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/14\/the-employees-provident-funds-sixth-amendment-scheme-2016-notified\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":4},"title":"The Employees\u2019 Provident Funds (Sixth Amendment) Scheme, 2016, notified","author":"Saba","date":"November 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"G.S.R.1065(E).\u2014In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of \u00a0Employees\u2019 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby\u00a0makes the following Scheme further to amend the Employees\u2019 Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, namely:- 1. (1) This Scheme may\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262857,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/posting-and-sharing-unhealthy-materials-with-unparliamentary-language-and-remarks-etc-on-social-media-without-any-solid-basis-cause-a-deleterious-effect-on-society-at-large\/","url_meta":{"origin":43301,"position":5},"title":"People using cyberspace to vent out anger and frustration by travestying key-figures holding highest office in country, is abhorrent and violates right to reputation: All HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Posting & sharing unhealthy materials with unparliamentary language and remarks, etc. on social media without any solid basis cause a deleterious effect on society at large, ergo in order to protect reputation and character of individuals, it should be completely stopped.\" Allahabad High Court: Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., expressed that,\u00a0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43301\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}