ACQUITTAL
DELHI HIGH COURT | DNA report merely proves paternity, and it cannot by itself establish absence of consent; Man convicted of rape, acquitted
In an appeal filed challenging the judgment dated 23-12-2022 and order on sentence dated 28-01-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) RC-01, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), whereby the appellant (‘accused’) was convicted under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Amit Mahajan, J., stated that the DNA report merely proves paternity and it did not and could not, by itself, established the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, was insufficient to prove rape unless it was also shown that the act was non-consensual. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The Court acquitted accused of all the charges and stated that he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Read more HERE
ADVOCATES
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Advocate-client privilege | DCP’s notice summoning Advocate to give statement and signature specimen, quashed
In a writ petition filed against the respondents including State of Madhya Pradesh and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Indore (DCP), for issuing notice against the Advocate to appear before him and give his statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and also signature specimen, a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., formally quashed the notice and made the interim order dated 13-03-2025 absolute. Read more HERE
ALIMONY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Spouse can’t be directed to pay permanent Alimony without a formal application under S. 25 of Hindu Marriage Act
In an appeal pertaining to the issue of whether a Court can direct a spouse to pay permanent alimony in the absence of a formal application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a single-judge bench of Gajendra Singh,* J., held that permanent alimony cannot be granted unless a specific application is made and set aside the impugned order granting permanent alimony. Read more HERE
BAIL
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Asaram Bapu’s bail extended on medical grounds in 2013 rape case
In a bail application filed by Asaram Bapu under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking extension of his temporary bail by six months on medical grounds, a Single Judge Bench of A.S. Supehia., J., allowed the petition, holding that Asaram had established his “need” for medical treatments for various ailments and was entitled to interim bail. This decision came after the Division Bench of Ilesh J. Vora and Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ., delivered a split verdict and referred the matter for final adjudication. Read more HERE
CONSUMER PROTECTION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mandatory Service Charges by restaurants declared unlawful; CCPA Guidelines upheld
A petition was filed by National Restaurant Association of India (petitioner) to consider whether the collection of mandatory Service Charge by restaurants and other establishments is permissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that the guidelines framed by the CCPA are valid and are in the interest of the consumers and the same are upheld. Read more HERE
COURT PROCEEDINGS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Plea for mandatory live streaming of court proceedings citing security & logistical concerns, dismissed
In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions for the respondents to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s and the Delhi High Court’s directions regarding live-streaming and video recording of court proceedings on grounds of lack of implementation of these directions resulting in opaqueness in judicial processes, thereby impeding the public’s right to access justice, Sachin Datta, J., dismissed the petition and held that issuance of any omnibus directions, regardless of the technical issues and the safeguards that are required to be put in place, could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes. Read more HERE
CREMATORIUM
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Citizens do not have the right to cremate or bury at a specific location; Plea against illegal crematorium, allowed
In the present case, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners’ seeking directions against CIDCO from granting any approval, sanction, permission for construction of crematorium on Plot Nos. 176, 176A and 176B of Sector 9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata*, JJ., opined that a citizen or group of citizens would not have any fundamental right in seeking any place for cremation or burial. The Court held that the petitioners were correct, especially after considering the presence of schools, open playgrounds and several societies that were being affected by the fire and smoke. The Court thus directed the respondents to use the said land, which was reserved for petrol pumps, as per Sanctioned Development Plans in accordance with law. Read more HERE
CRUELTY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Wife’s threat to commit suicide and then attempting it, is cruelty against husband and his family members; qualifies as ground for divorce
The present appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) against the judgment and decree passed in a case filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, and decree was passed for dissolution of their marriage. The said decree was challenged unsuccessfully and hence, the present appeal was preferred. A Single Judge Bench of R.M. Joshi, J., opined that the wife’s act of threatening her husband and his family members that she would send them to jail by committing suicide and thereafter, attempting it, would amount to cruelty, and it was a ground for divorce. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Compelling wife to adopt husband’s spiritual practices, causing emotional distress, amounts to mental cruelty
In an appeal filed by the husband against the judgment and decree of Family Court, which granted a decree of divorce sought by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the division bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ., held that compelling the wife to adopt the husband’s spiritual practices, which caused her emotional distress, amounted to mental cruelty. Further, the Court concluded that the evidence on record demonstrated that mutual love, trust, and care between the spouses had been lost, and the marriage had become irretrievably broken, as rightly determined by the Family Court. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment. Read more HERE
DEFAMATON
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Defamation case against Journalists publishing Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann’s statement on then AAP MLA receiving money from Congress, quashed
In a set of two applications filed by editors and others working for The Tribune (English) and The Punjabi Tribune, seeking quashing of a defamation case filed against them for publishing Punjab’s Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s statement about an AAP MLA in 2019, a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., allowed the applications, holding that there was no allegation of the complainant that the present accused had the intention to harm his reputation in any manner, or that they had the knowledge or reasons to believe that it would harm his reputation. Further, no material had been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the accused had reported or published the news to harm the complainant’s reputation, or knew or had reason to believe that it would cause harm to his reputation. Read more HERE
DISABLED/DIFFERENTLY-ABLED PERSONS
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Benevolent policy cannot be defeated by reluctance and apathy of officers’, State directed to implement monthly scholarship scheme for disabled children
In a writ petition concerning the scholarship provided to students with disabilities, the division bench comprising Nitin Jamdar*, CJ., and S. Manu, J., directed the State to meticulously implement its 2015 policy for persons with disabilities. Under this policy, the State had announced a Scheme for the distribution of monthly scholarships to eligible students with disabilities. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Transfer Order of disabled employee to be treated as interim recommendation under Disabilities Act, 2016; Scope of CCPD’s powers, clarified
The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed challenging a judgment delivered by the Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that that the order dated 02-08-2024, is to be treated as an interim recommendation under Section 75 and 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which needs to be considered by the respondent 1 and, in case, it is unable to accept said recommendation, it needs to convey the valid reasons therefore to the CCPD. Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | UGC Regulations on teachers’ appointments infringe Article 30 of the Constitution; not applicable to Minority Institutions
In a batch of petitions filed challenging the proceedings of the University of Madras refusing to grant approval for the appointment of 66 persons to the post of Assistant Professor and seeking a direction to the Annamalai University to grant approval for appointment to the post of Principal, the single judge bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J. held that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (‘UGC Regulations, 2018’) will not apply to the minority institutions. Given this conclusion, the refusal by the University of Madras and Annamalai University to grant approval for appointments based on non-compliance with the UGC-mandated Selection Committee structure was deemed invalid. The Court observed that the State Government’s Government Order was merely an adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and since the UGC-mandated Selection Committee was found to infringe upon minority rights, the Government Order itself could not stand. Therefore, the reasoning behind the universities’ refusal to approve appointments also failed. In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders issued by the University of Madras and Annamalai University were quashed. The Court directed both universities to approve the selections made by the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Professor and Principal without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Government Order. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Revaluation of law student’s criminology paper, directed; Ambedkar University asked to propose evaluation criteria and weightage
In a writ petition filed to direct the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University to revalue his answer paper as submitted therein and declare the petitioner as passed in Criminology and Penology in the 10th Semester BCA., LLB., (Hons.) course examination conducted on 13-11-2024, the Single Judge Bench of N. Mala, J. viewed that the answer script submitted in the case should be examined by a Criminal Law Practitioner. Further, the Court directed the University to clarify and respond to the queries regarding the transparency and fairness of the semester examination evaluation process. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Power of inspection a necessary concomitant to maintain the standards of education’; BCI’s power to inspect law colleges, upheld
In the present case, the petitioner challenged the validity of Rules 2(iv)(a), 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rules 14, 16(2), 18(2), 19(ii), 19(iii) and 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (‘the 2008 Rules’) on the ground that the same were void and ultra vires the power conferred under Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) and therefore, should be struck down. Further, the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned notices dated 28-8-2018 and 19-9-2018 issued by BCI, on the ground that the same was ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and was dehors Sections 7(h), 7(i), and 49(d) of the 1961 Act and was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe*, C.J., and M.S. Karnik, J., opined that the challenge made to the 2008 Rules as being ultra vires, the parent Act was without any basis, as under Section 49(1)(d) of the 1961 Act, BCI had the general rule making power and had power to frame rules to discharge its functions under the 1961 Act, one of them being to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education. The Court held that Rules 2(iv)(a), 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto Rules 14, 16(2), 18(2), 19(ii), 19(iii), and 26(a) of the 2008 Rules were intra vires Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the 1961 Act. Further, the impugned notices dated 2-8-2018 and 19-9-2018 issued by BCI could not be termed as arbitrary or in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Black Magic Act 2013 enacted to curb harmful practices posing serious risk to individuals/society, excludes legitimate religious practices
In the present case, the petitioner alleged that under the guise of discourse and meditation, Respondent 2-accused instilled fear in him by promoting and propagating disturbing practices like human sacrifice, and other inhumane and aghori practices, along with black magic, all advertised through an audio-video CD. A Single Judge Bench of R.N. Laddha, J., stated that the petitioner had no direct interaction with the accused and voluntarily attended the seminars where the alleged CD, containing the accused’s pre-recorded two-hour discourse, was played. The Court opined that the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’) was enacted to curb harmful practices that posed serious risk to individuals and society, including human sacrifices, fraudulent rituals, and psychological exploitation, and explicitly excluded legitimate religious practices, the sharing of traditional knowledge, and cultural or artistic expressions. Read more HERE
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY LAWS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Sole proprietorship firm don’t fall under definition of “debtor” under S. 94 of IBC; Recovery proceedings refused to be halted
In a writ petition seeking directions to halt the recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner’s mortgaged property, a Division bench of Vivek Rusia* and Prem Narayan Singh, JJ., held that recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, will continue, and no moratorium can be claimed under IBC as sole proprietorship firms cannot seek relief under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Relief granted to e-commerce platform ‘Purplle’; directs removal of mark ‘Purplle Tree’ from Register of Trade Marks
In a petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) seeking rectification/removal of the trademark, , registered in Respondent 1’s favour, Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that Respondent 1’s marks i.e. PURPLLE TREE/ were liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Accordingly, the Court directed cancellation of registration of , registered in favour of Respondent 1. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Permanent injunction granted in favour of Peak XV Partners; restrains fraudulent websites and WhatsApp groups from passing off its trade mark
In a present suit filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the trademark, along with other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., stated that Defendant 1 had taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ marks and had also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff, by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s mark without any plausible explanation. Thus, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant 1. The Court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to restrain the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name and marks without authorization from the plaintiff. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Injunction granted in favour of L’Oréal against trademark infringement and counterfeiting
In a suit filed by Loreal SA (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 from infringement of registered trademark and copyright of the plaintiff and other conjuncted reliefs of passing off, delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a nominal cost of ₹1,00,000, which shall be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1, within a period of eight weeks. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Permanent injunction granted to Tata Group’s Ginger Hotels; restrains fake websites from infringing its trade mark
In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademarks ‘GINGER’, (‘Ginger marks’) and the subsisting copyright in the original professional photographs of the plaintiff’s GINGER hotels, passing off, dilution, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that , the illegal and fraudulent activities of the defendants might not only cause incalculable loss to the plaintiff, but also to the large number of users/customers accessing the plaintiff’s website, who might be under an impression that the defendants’ impugned websites, were from the sub-brand of the plaintiff company, and consequently, affecting the business, goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff’s mark. Thus, the Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in the plaintiff’s favour and stated that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs, payable by Defendants 1, 8, 9 and 10, jointly and severally. Read more HERE
NDPS
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Law does not sanction indefinite retention of property; should not be subjected to unnecessary deterioration
In a plea seeking the release of the vehicle seized for transporting contraband, the Single Bench of Dr. SK Panigrahi, J. while reiterating that prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no meaningful purpose and results only in their gradual deterioration and depreciation, directed the release of seized vehicle subject to certain conditions. The Court directed the accused to produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the Police Station concerned, which shall be verified properly, and true attested copies thereof shall be retained by the I.O/IIC; and that the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle shall not be changed. The Bench also directed the accused to furnish two photographs of the vehicle before taking delivery of the same; not transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of any other person; produce the vehicle before the Court as and when called upon; shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence; and furnish property/cash security of Rs.3,00,000/-. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Bail under NDPS Act denied, but emphasised interim bail as a safeguard against prolonged pre-trial detention
A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), following his arrest on 26-08-2023 after a raid conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) led to the seizure of 148.5 kg of cannabis, which is well above the commercial quantity threshold. A division bench of Arijit Banerjee and Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ., while acknowledging the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, denied the petitioner’s request for bail, citing prima facie incriminating material against him and the lack of sufficient grounds to believe that he was not guilty or unlikely to reoffend if released. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Unlawful religious conversion and rape are non-compoundable offences, proceedings cannot be quashed based on settlement between parties
In an application filed to quash the chargesheet and the proceedings under Sections 420, 323, 376, 344 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, the single judge bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J. found that the alleged offences are serious in nature and non-compoundable. Therefore, the Court ruled that the instant proceedings cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, even in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘His speech did not give specific direction to damage public property’; 2008 Beed stone pelting case against Raj Shrikant Thackeray, quashed
In the present case, an application was filed for quashing the proceedings in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali Vaijinath, Beed arising out of FIR registered with Police Station, Parali Vaijinath (Rural), Beed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 427, 336, and 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that actual mischief or damage to the public property by pelting stones could not be based on abetment, because the applicant in his speech, could not have given a specific direction to the party workers/followers that they should go and cause damage to public property. The Court opined that it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicant had to face the trial as the charge sheet also did not mention that any statement was ever made by the applicant to provoke its party workers. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali Vaijinath, Beed. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Censure order against Chemistry teacher for student’s poor result in 12th Board Exam, quashed
In a writ petition challenging the order penalising a Chemistry teacher with a penalty of censure for his student’s poor result in Class 12th Board examination, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed the impugned orders as there exist no specific finding to establish that petitioner’s negligence or misconduct directly caused the students’ poor performance. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘A person’s rightful claim can’t be rejected on a machine’s failure’; Candidate’s rejection order based on biometric verification failure, quashed
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order by which the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant was rejected on the grounds of unsuccessful biometric verification conducted by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the agency appointed by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), a single-judge bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., held that failure of a machine cannot be the basis to deny someone’s legitimate claim when identity is otherwise verifiable and no mala fide is alleged. The Court quashed the impugned rejection order and directed LIC to verify the petitioner’s identity through documentary evidence and issue the appointment letter within four weeks. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | “Inconceivable that entire proceedings could have been concluded fairly within two weeks”; Order quashing disciplinary action against Canara Bank employee, upheld
In a writ appeal filed by Canara Bank under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed by the single judge, wherein the Court quashed the disciplinary proceeding and dismissal order against an employee, the division bench of G.R. Swaminathan* and P. Vadamalai, JJ. said that it is inconceivable that the entire proceedings could have been concluded in a fair manner within a period of two weeks. Thus, for gross violation of principles of procedural fairness, the impact of clause 5.2 on the disciplinary action, and the non-speaking nature of the order, the Court declined to interfere with the order of the Single Judge. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | No invalidation to one-year LLM degree for appointment in Public Departments or Universities
In a writ petition filed to quash the provisional selection list of candidates published by the Teachers Recruitment Board (‘TRB’) pursuant to TRB notification, and consequently directing TRB to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor against the vacancy in Human Rights department, R.N. Manjula, J. quashed the selection list, and directed TRB to include the petitioner’s name in the selection list. The State was also directed to release the appointment order to the petitioner, giving her retrospective seniority from the date of appointment of candidates who secured fewer marks than her, with notional effect from the date of their appointment. Read more HERE
SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No embargo for convenience stores to remain open 24×7 and/or post 10 or 11 p.m.
In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance was that a new concept of 24×7 shopping for daily needs introduced by the petitioner under its brand “The New Shop” situated at Hadapsar, Pune, was being illegally hindered by the police. The petitioner filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for this Court to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 2 and 3 not to coerce and force the petitioner to shut its convenience store namely “the New Shop” and its operations after 10/11 p.m. The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., noted that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (‘the 2017 Act’), there was no embargo for the establishments like the petitioner’s convenience store, to conduct its shops 24×7 and/or post 10/11p.m. The Court opined that the objection by Respondent 3-police inspector, appeared to have been taken by mistake as it was clear that the restriction on the opening and closing hours were prescribed only for the specific establishments like Permit Rooms, Beer Bars, Dance Bars, Hookah Parlour, Discotheques, and the establishments in which liquor of any kind was served and also liquor shops, theatres, and cinema exhibition houses, and this did not include the petitioner’s shop. Read more HERE
RAGGING
KERALA HIGH COURT | Working Group directed to convene and formulate action plan to address gaps in Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act
In a writ petition filed by Kerala State Legal Services Authority (‘KeLSA’) praying to direct Department of Higher Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Office of the Director General of Education, All India Council for Technical Education and Bar council of Kerala to give details of the steps taken by them as per University Grants Commission Regulations, 2009 to prevent and combat ragging in educational institutions in the State, the division bench of Nitin Jamdar, CJ. and C. Jayachandran, J. directed the Multidisciplinary Working Group, established by the State to address the deficiencies in the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, by proposing amendments and formulating rules, to convene a preliminary meeting promptly and outline a comprehensive plan of action. Read more HERE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Breach of privacy and dignity’; Removal of obscene video from social media, directed; notice issued
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and IT Rules, 2021 seeking urgent intervention from the Court to prevent the continued circulation of obscene video, involving petitioner 1’s daughter and petitioner 2’s husband on a social media platform, Instagram, without their consent, a single-judge bench of Ganesh Ram Meena, J., issued notices to the respondents and directed them to ensure that the alleged obscene video is not made available to viewers on social media platforms. Read more HERE
Asaram bapu case is clearly a bogus one!
Without concrete proof not sure how judiciary gave a life imprisonment!
Judiciary should re rhink!