![[Patanjali Fake Ad Case] Celebrities, Influencers Equally Liable for Misleading Ads: SC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.png?resize=447%2C361&ssl=1)
Today(7th May): The Supreme Court ruled that celebrities and influencers are equally responsible for endorsing misleading advertisements. They emphasized the need for transparency in paid endorsements and stated that endorsers, advertisers, and advertising agencies share equal responsibility. The Court issued directions to promote accountability, including the submission of self-declaration forms by advertisers and TV broadcasters.
Today (6th May): The Supreme Court of India upheld the minimum marks requirement in Bihar Judicial Services Examination interviews, ruling that it does not violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The decision came in response to a plea from unsuccessful candidates, emphasizing the importance of maintaining fairness and transparency in the recruitment process.
![[BREAKING] Ramdev, Patanjali Publish New and 'BIGGER' Apology Today | A Day After SC Rap](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-47-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Following a Supreme Court reprimand, Patanjali co-founders Ramdev and Balkrishna issued a new, more prominent public apology in newspapers, acknowledging their non-compliance with court directions and vowing to rectify their mistakes. The apology addresses misleading advertisements and emphasizes their commitment to abide by the court’s instructions. The court scheduled a hearing on April 30 to review the matter.
Today(on 24th April), the Supreme Court is expected to issue directions on petitions seeking 100% cross-verification of votes in EVMs with VVPAT slips for transparency. The VVPAT serves as an independent mechanism for voters to verify vote accuracy. The bench engaged in detailed discussions on EVM operations and expressed reservations about manual counting.
Today (18th April): The Supreme Court stressed the sanctity of the electoral process and urged the Election Commission of India to clarify measures ensuring free and fair polls. Senior advocates and officials addressed concerns about VVPAT slips, privacy, and proposed solutions to enhance transparency and credibility. The ECI reassured robust measures to prevent tampering and ensure integrity.
Today (18th April): The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea to tally Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) votes with Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips during elections. The petition aims to ensure accuracy and integrity in the electoral process and seeks expanded verification of all EVM votes with VVPAT records. This plea challenges the current guidelines and emphasizes the need for stringent punishment to prevent manipulation.
Today (16th April): The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission about penalties for tampering with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). They emphasized the need for trust in the system and rejected a plea to revert to ballot papers. Concerns were raised about human intervention and the practicality of tallying VVPAT slips with EVM votes. The Court proposed independent technical inspection of EVMs after voting.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose information about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs). This decision followed a second appeal by retired civil servant MG Devasahayam. The ECI must provide the requested data within 30 days. Compliance with the order is mandatory.
![[Electoral Bond Data] SBI Refuses to Disclose Data Under RTI Act](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-23.png?resize=447%2C269&ssl=1)
On Wednesday (10th April): The State Bank of India (SBI) refused to disclose electoral bond data under the RTI Act, citing exemptions related to fiduciary capacity and public interest. This refusal, including the denial of information about the payment to lawyer Harish Salve, has raised concerns about transparency and accountability, undermining democratic principles and public interest. The case may reflect future changes in RTI Act exemptions under the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.