The criminal process cannot be used as a weapon to settle political scores or to stifle legitimate political dissent, the Madras High Court held, quashing a Section 153A complaint against former Tamil Nadu BJP chief K. Annamalai over a 2023 speech, finding no intent to promote communal enmity and no reference to two identifiable communities. […]
A WhatsApp status, visible only to one’s contacts, is not a “publication or circulation” and does not by itself attract the offence of promoting enmity between communities under Section 505(2) IPC, the Karnataka High Court held, quashing an FIR over a post uploaded after the 2024 Lok Sabha result. Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has […]
A student and member of the Cockroach Janata Party has moved the Allahabad High Court to quash an FIR registered against him after he recorded and shared a video showing the condition of a government primary school in Farrukhabad. He argues the FIR discloses none of the ingredients of the offences invoked, that recording a public school’s condition is a matter of legitimate public concern protected by Article 19(1)(a), and that its continuation would be an abuse of process. The allegations are untested.
Hearing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court observed that a person who calls himself a YouTube commentator must understand the platform, the context and the impact of what he says, that he cannot name a person in a manner crossing legal limits, and that where a statute like the SC/ST Act creates special protections one must be especially circumspect. The observations were made orally and are not a ruling.
The Madras High Court refused to ban the Tamil film Karuppu, observing that portraying judicial corruption and criticising the judiciary cannot automatically amount to contempt, while emphasising that judges are not beyond scrutiny and freedom of artistic expression must be protected in a democratic society.
