The Karnataka High Court granted relief to comedian Ratan Ranjan in the case over a video showing Rahul Gandhi’s image on a sanitary pad, directing police not to file a chargesheet against him or co-accused Arun Kumar.
Today, On 26th March, The Delhi High Court allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against rapper Yo Yo Honey Singh’s song ‘Maniac’. The petition had raised objections to the song’s lyrics, alleging they were inappropriate. However, the petitioner later sought to withdraw the case, and the court granted permission. With this decision, the legal challenge against the song has come to an end.
Actress Neetu Chandra filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Patna High Court, demanding a complete ban on vulgar Bhojpuri songs. She argues that such content negatively impacts society and makes women uncomfortable watching television at home. Chandra emphasizes the need for cleaner, more respectful entertainment.
The suspension of a Bihar teacher over her critical remarks has sparked a debate on the limits of free speech, professional conduct, and constitutional rights.
Today, On 3rd March, The Supreme Court criticized Gujarat Police for registering an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a social media post featuring a poem. The court stressed the significance of free speech, stating that the poem promotes non-violence and does not target any religion. It suggested that the case may have political motives and granted interim protection to Pratapgarhi.
Today, On 14th November, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL requesting guidelines against hate speech, emphasizing its distinct nature from misinformation. The court clarified that grievances should be raised through lawful channels, rejecting calls for stricter regulations and training for political figures addressing provocative statements threatening national security and unity.
Today, On 14th May, The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL alleging Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal misused the names of national icons for political gains. The court found no merit in the claims, stating they lacked substantial evidence. The dismissal reflects the court’s stance on avoiding politically charged issues without a strong legal basis.
