In an exclusive interview, outgoing Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud discussed the balance between regulating hate speech and preserving free expression. He defended India’s reservation system for promoting equality, emphasized the judiciary’s role in democracy, and underscored the importance of fair compensation for judges, acknowledging his contributions to rights and transparency during his tenure.
Defamation in Indian law, defined under Section 499 of the IPC, involves harming an individual’s reputation through false statements. It includes criminal and civil aspects, with penalties for offenders. Recent judicial interpretations, including the controversial Subramanian Swamy case, highlight tensions between protecting reputation and maintaining free speech rights, necessitating careful legal consideration.
![[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.
Today(6th September), The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order requiring YouTuber G Felix Gerald to shut down his channel ‘RED PIX 24×7’ as a bail condition. This directive was previously imposed due to his arrest for airing an interview with derogatory remarks about women police personnel.
On July 15, the Union Home Ministry agreed to suspend provisions in newly passed criminal laws requiring evidence to be recorded via video conferencing from police stations, following protests from Delhi’s bar associations. The legal community in Delhi plans to submit a representation to the government, expressing concerns about all three criminal laws enacted this year.
![[BREAKING] Excise Policy Case: Delhi HC Sets Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against ED Summons on September 9](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MicrosoftTeams-image-6-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (27th May): The Delhi High Court has dropped a Rs 1 lakh fine imposed on a lawyer who filed a PIL aimed at restraining media channels from airing sensational headlines regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s resignation. The court directed the lawyer to perform community service and attach the court’s order to any future petition. The PIL sought to restrict media coverage and was considered beyond the court’s purview.
Today(on 8th April), The Delhi High Court reprimanded Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for speaking to the media after his defamation case hearing against Mahua Moitra. The court summoned Moitra and emphasized that making allegations without an injunction grants Moitra the right to defend herself. The court adjourned the case until April 25. Dehadrai sought Rs. 2 crore in damages and requested media outlets to remove defamatory content.
Today (8th April): The Supreme Court rejected AAP leader Sanjay Singh’s appeal regarding the disclosure of PM Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications. The Court refused to intervene in the defamation case against Singh, upholding the summons issued by the trial court. The case will proceed, emphasizing that free speech does not extend to defamation.
Today(on1st April),The Supreme Court rejected Udhayanidhi Stalin’s plea to consolidate complaints against him, differentiating his remarks on Sanatana Dharma from media statements. Despite his legal comparisons and representations, the court directed him to amend his plea and scheduled the next hearing for early May. Stalin’s controversial remarks continue to evoke legal responses and public reactions.
India’s Attorney General AG R Venkataramani noted an increase in state governments resorting to the Supreme Court for political disputes, indicating the court’s growing involvement in constitutional challenges previously viewed as political. This trend, exemplified by states like Kerala, Punjab, and Karnataka, poses new constitutional implications. Venkataramani stressed the importance of free speech and the basic structure doctrine in upholding constitutional integrity.