Balancing free speech and hate speech in digital media is crucial as online content continues to push the boundaries of expression and regulation.
Uttarakhand: The Uttarakhand High Court sought a response from the state government within six weeks regarding multiple petitions challenging the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Chief Justice G Narender, while hearing one such petition on Friday, observed that anyone facing action under the UCC in the meantime could approach the court for relief.
The Bombay High Court ordered that loudspeakers are not integral to any religion, highlighting the severe health risks posed by noise pollution. A division bench comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and S. C. Chandak observed that denying permissions for loudspeakers does not infringe on anyone’s rights. The court highlighted the importance of strict measures against violations to safeguard public health and order. Authorities have been instructed to take effective action to curb misuse.
![[RG Kar Rape-Murder] 'Physical Abuse by the Police During Detention': Calcutta HC Orders CBI Probe Into 'Torture' Of Women Protestors In Custody](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-1-3.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Yesterday, On 8th October, the Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI investigation into alleged custodial torture of two women arrested during protests related to a doctor’s rape and murder. The court emphasized the need for an independent inquiry due to possible conflicts of interest within local law enforcement. The investigation focuses on police actions from September 8 to 11.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the state cannot suspend internet services during examinations without prior court permission, emphasizing that such actions violate fundamental rights. The court criticized the government’s justification for the broader shutdown, suggesting it constituted contempt of court and lacked factual basis, undermining public convenience and judicial authority.
![[Unconstitutional] Bombay High Court Strikes Down 2023 IT Rules Allowing Centre to Set Up Fact-Check Units](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-357.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today(20th Sept),The Bombay High Court struck down Rule 3 of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, which allowed the Centre to create a Fact-Check Unit to regulate fake news about the government on social media. The ruling came after petitions, including one by comedian Kunal Kamra, challenged the rule’s constitutionality.
The Delhi High Court quashed a 47-year-old government eviction notice against The Indian Express, citing it as an attempt to stifle press freedom. The court ruled the notices invalid and ordered the government to pay Rs 5 lakh in costs. This decision stemmed from a long-standing dispute over the newspaper’s premises, originally allocated in the 1950s.
![[Defamatory Remarks] "Calcutta HC's Restraining Order Against CM to be Challenged": Mamata Banerjee's Lawyer](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-2024-07-18T142955.687.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Mamata Banerjee’s lawyer announced plans to challenge the Calcutta High Court’s restraining order against the Chief Minister. The issue arose after Governor Bose filed a defamation case against Banerjee on June 28. Calcutta: After the Calcutta High Court‘s ruling to prohibit West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee from making ‘defamatory‘ remarks against Governor C.V. Ananda […]
Today 4th April, A recent plea in the Supreme Court emphasizes that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) aims to protect persecuted non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The plea argues that the CAA does not violate any fundamental rights and requests the rejection of a petition challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court is set to hear petitions against the CAA on April 9.
The Supreme Court set aside the order against Bloomberg’s report on Zee Entertainment, which alleged a $241 million accounting irregularity. It emphasized the need for a more thorough assessment of facts in such cases, nullifying the injunction. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the prior decisions and stressed the necessity for a proper evaluation before granting an injunction.