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. […]
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to social-media commentator Ajeet Bharti in an SC/ST Atrocities Act case over a video allegedly containing caste-based slurs aimed at MP Chandrashekhar Azad, holding that a prima facie case of caste-based humiliation is made out and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Act applies. New […]
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 […]
Retired Supreme Court Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur emphasized concerns over judicial independence, systemic inefficiencies, and the impact of new laws on fundamental rights in India. He criticized delays in judicial appointments and highlighted issues like the overpopulation of undertrial prisoners. Justice Lokur advocated for greater accountability and transparency within the judiciary.
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.
A petition in the Allahabad High Court seeks to restrain Yati Narsinghanand from making derogatory comments about Prophet Muhammad and the Quran, requesting the removal of his “hate speech” from social media. The petitioners argue that his actions jeopardize societal stability and call for legal action against him due to his history of hate speech.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that chanting “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” does not amount to hate speech. Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed charges against five individuals accused of promoting enmity, asserting that such slogans do not incite division. The FIR was deemed a retaliatory response lacking the essential elements for prosecution under Section 153A of the IPC.