Days after two video clips of Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda went viral on social media, the Advocates’ Association Bengaluru Today (Sept 23) moved the Karnataka High Court seeking directions to restrain public from editing/ morphing or illegally using live streamed videos of court proceedings. The judge later apologised for his comments after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisnace of the comments.
A day after couple of video clips from its YouTube channel went viral, the Karnataka High Court Today (Sept 20) displayed a message before starting live streaming of its court proceedings warning viewers from recording, sharing or disseminating the videos of live court proceedings without prior permission.
![[BREAKING] CJI Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Viral Controversial Remarks of Karnataka HC Judge](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-338.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (Sept 20) took suo motu cognizance of the video clips containing the controversial comments made by a judge of Karnataka High Court during hearings. A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy assembled today morning and passed an order seeking a report from the Karnataka High Court.
![[BREAKING] Plea Against PM Modi, Rahul Gandhi Over 'Defamatory' Remarks On Adani Group Filed In Delhi Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-48.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
A petition filed in a Delhi court seeking to restrain Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi for making false, fabricated and misleading speeches and levelling allegations againt Adani group. The petitioner has cited speeches by Rahul Gandhi and PM Modi in poll rallies and sought permanent injunction to prevent them from making defamatory statements that could harm Adani Group’s market value.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed an inquiry into the alleged contempt of court by advocate Madan Singh, rejecting his apology and emphasizing the need to safeguard the court’s dignity. The lawyer allegedly made derogatory comments about a judge’s family, prompting the court to proceed with formal charges and a thorough investigation.