News stories, news, articles, videos, slideshows, images, and web stories. Business Insider India is providing latest and consolidated news related to the News category.

News Stories, News, Articles, Videos, Slideshows and Web Stories

Get the latest news on Business, Startups, Auto, Tech, Stock Market, Finance, Careers, Education, Science, Mobile, Crypto, and Sustainability on Business Insider India.

Business News: Latest updates about business and economy in India

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the CBI to file a report by September 18 on detestable posts being made on social media regarding the rape-murder victim of R G Kar Medical College and Hospital. The body of the on-duty trainee doctor was found in the seminar room of the state-run hospital on August 9, triggering nationwide outrage. The CBI is investigating the case from the second week of August on an order of the high court. The petitioner prayed in the PIL that the CBI be directed to investigate the cyber offences in connection with the "unfortunate and brutal incident." The court asked the Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakrabarti, representing the central agency, whether it could find a way to block these types of posts. The division bench, presided by Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, directed the joint director, CBI, Kolkata, to look into the grievance expressed by the petitioner with regard to the issue of such abominable social media posts. The bench, also comprising Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, directed the CBI joint director or any other competent officer to file a report in this regard by September 18, when the PIL will come up for hearing again along with other petitions relating to the August 9 rape-murder of the doctor. After the order was dictated, Chakrabarti submitted before the court that the CBI does not have any separate wing to investigate such cyber crimes. Maintaining that the state police has a special unit to monitor such matters, he prayed that the West Bengal government's cyber crime branch be also directed to file a separate report. The court said that it would consider the prayer on the next date of hearing.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Calcutta High Court seeks CBI report on nasty social media posts on RG Kar hospital rape-murder victim

Defending its 2019 law criminalising triple talaq, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that the practice is "fatal" for the social institution of marriage. In an affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the law, the Union of India said despite the top court setting aside the practice in 2017, it has "not worked as a sufficient deterrent in bringing down the number of divorces by this practice" among the members of the community. "It is submitted that Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the impugned Act to protect the rights of married Muslim women who are being divorced by triple talaq. "The impugned Act helps in ensuring the larger constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and helps subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment," the affidavit said. On 22 August 2017, the apex court had declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddah) unconstitutional. On August 23, 2019, the top court agreed to examine the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Violation of the law entails imprisonment of up to three years. Two Muslim organisations -- Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema -- have urged the court to declare the law "unconstitutional". Jamiat claimed in its petition that "criminalising a mode of divorce in one particular religion while keeping the subject of marriage and divorce in other religions only within the purview of civil law, leads to discrimination, which is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 15".<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Centre defends 2019 law on triple talaq in SC, says practice 'fatal' for marriage

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging a Delhi High Court order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the BJP IT Cell. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the Bombay High Court which had upheld a decision of a Mumbai college to impose a ban on wearing of 'hijab', 'burqa' and 'naqab' inside the campus. The high court had on June 26 refused to interfere with the decision of the Chembur Trombay Education Society's N G Acharya and D K Marathe College imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' fundamental rights. It had said a dress code is meant to maintain discipline which is part of the college's fundamental right to "establish and administer an educational institution". Taking note of submission seeking urgent listing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already assigned a bench for the matter and that it would be listed soon. Lawyer Abiha Zaidi, appearing for petitioners, including Zainab Abdul Qayyum, sought urgent hearing saying the unit tests in the college are likely to commence on Wednesday. The top court is yet to conclusively decide the legality of such diktats issued by educational institutions. A two-judge bench of the top court, on October 13, 2022, had delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy emanating from Karnataka. The then BJP-led state government had imposed a ban on wearing the Islamic head covering in schools there. While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. The present controversy stems from the decision of a Mumbai college. The Bombay High Court trashed the plea against the ban and said the dress code was applicable to all students irrespective of religion or caste. The students, who were in the second and third year of the science degree course, had moved the high court, challenging a directive issued by the college imposing a dress code under which students cannot wear a hijab, naqab, burka, stoles, caps and badges on the premises. The students had claimed it was against their fundamental right to practice religion, the right to privacy and right to choice. The college's action was "arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law and perverse", the plea had said. The high court, however, had said it could not see how the prescription of dress code by the college violated Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom to practice religion) of the Constitution. "In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the HC had said. The high court had also refused to accept the petitioners' contention that wearing a hijab, naqab and burqa was an essential practice of their religion. "Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners' contention that donning of hijab and naqab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard, therefore, fails," the HC had said. Prescribing a dress code should be seen as an "exercise towards maintaining discipline", and the right to do so flows from the fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or run trade/business) and Article 26 of the Constitution, the HC had said. The dress code was mandatory only within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, it had said.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to concerned respondents on the West Bengal government plea challenging the Calcutta High Court decision cancelling all Other Backward Caste certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also asked the West Bengal government to file an affidavit explaining the process to determine 77 communities as OBCs. The top court, however, did not stay the Calcutta High Court order but issued notice on West Bengal's application seeking a stay on the order. In the meantime, the top court also asked the government to file an affidavit explaining the process followed for the determination of 77 communities as OBCs. The court sought to know the nature of the survey and the study relied upon the classification of 77 communities as OBCs. The court also sought to know details of the consultation the state government had with the WB Backward Commission prior to including the 77 communities in the OBC list. The court has asked the WB government to file the affidavit within one week. The top court was hearing West Bengal Government challenging Calcutta High Court order. Calcutta HC on May 22 cancelled all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010 had directed the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission to prepare a new list of OBCs in accordance with the 1993 Act. Those who were in the OBC list before 2010 will remain. However, after 2010, OBC nominations have been cancelled. About 5 lakh OBC certificates are set to be cancelled. After 2010, those who have jobs under the OBC quota or are in the process of getting them cannot be excluded from the quota. There will be no impact on their job and they cannot be excluded from the quota. <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

SC issues notice on plea challenging Calcutta HC decision cancelling all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010

Union Minister Chirag Paswan expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court's observation on creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the Lok Jandhakti Party (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that Dalit people in various spheres of life still face untouchability, Paswan said that the basis of giving reservation to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a review petition in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible. <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

The Uttar Pradesh Assembly on Tuesday passed the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024 that provides for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, making the law stricter in cases of fraudulent or forced conversion. Earlier the maximum punishment provided for those found guilty of marrying a woman by deceiving her and converting her religion was 10 years with a fine of Rs 50,000. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Suresh Khanna introduced the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the House on Monday. It has been proposed that if a person threatens, attacks, marries or promises to marry or conspires for it, or trafficks a woman, minor or anyone with the intention of conversion, then his crime will be placed in the most serious category. In such cases, there is a provision of 20 years imprisonment or life imprisonment. Under the amended provisions, now any person can register an FIR in conversion cases. Earlier, to give information or complaint about the case, the presence of the victim, her parents, or siblings was necessary. It has been proposed that such cases will not be heard by any court below the Sessions Court and along with this, the bail plea will not be considered without giving an opportunity to the public prosecutor. Also, all the crimes under the amended Act have been made non-bailable. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had taken this initiative with the intention of curbing 'love jihad', a term coined by some Hindu outfits for alleged forcible conversion. An ordinance was issued for curbing forced conversion in November 2020 and later, after the bill was passed by both the houses of the Uttar Pradesh Legislature, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act-2021 came into force.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

UP Assembly passes amendment bill enhancing punishment under Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL challenging the government's decision to cancel the UGC-NET examination following alleged question paper leak. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, however, said the dismissal of the PIL does not amount to a decision on the merits of the PIL as it was filed by a lawyer and not by aggrieved students. "Why are you (lawyer) coming? Let the students come here themselves," the CJI told the lawyer, adding "while declining the above PIL, we express nothing on merits". The bench asked advocate Ujjawal Gaur, who has filed the PIL as a petitioner, to focus on some legal matters and leave such issues for aggrieved persons. The plea was filed against the decision of the Union education ministry and the National Testing Agency to cancel the UGC-NET exam following inputs that its integrity may have been compromised. The ministry on June 19 had ordered the cancellation of the UGC-NET exam and handed over the matter to the CBI for an investigation. In the plea, Gaur also sought a direction to immediately stay the proposed re-examination of the UGC-NET exam until the CBI completes its inquiry into the paper leak allegations. "The petitioner asserts that the decision is not only arbitrary but also unjust, given the recent findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). "The CBI's investigation brings the fact that the evidence suggesting the paper leak is doctored, thus nullifying the grounds on which the cancellation was based," the plea, filed through advocate Rohit Pandey, said. The petitioner submitted that the "unwarranted" cancellation of the exam has caused significant distress, anxiety, and an unnecessary expenditure of resources for the aspirants who have rigorously prepared for this crucial examination.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL against government decision to cancel UGC-NET exam

Expressing "serious concern" over pendency of a large number of cheque bounce cases, the Supreme Court has said courts should encourage compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act if parties are willing to reach a compromise. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the conviction of a man named P Kumarasamy in a cheque bounce case, after noting that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and Rs 5.25 lakh has been paid to the complainant. "A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so," the bench said in its July 11 order. The Negotiable Instruments Act governs all negotiable instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. Compoundable offences are those where a compromise can be reached by the rival parties. The bench said it has to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. "Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between the parties, we allow this appeal and acquit the appellants by setting aside the impugned order dated April 1, 2019 as well the trial court's order dated October 16, 2012. Appellant no.2 (P Kumarasamy), who was exempted from surrendering by this Court, need not surrender and his sureties are hereby discharged," the bench ordered. The bench noted that in 2006, P Kumarasamy alias Ganesh had borrowed Rs 5,25,000 from respondent A Subramaniam but did not repay the loan. To discharge the debt, the bench said, Kumarasamy gave a cheque for Rs 5.25 lakh in the name of his partnership firm M/s New Win Export. "Since the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the appellants where the trial court vide order dated October 16, 2012 convicted the appellants and imposed a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment each," it said. It noted Kumarasamy challenged the conviction before the appellate court, which reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted him and the firm. "Finally, when the matter was taken to the high court at the instance of the respondent/complainant, the high court in its order dated April 1, 2019 set aside the order of the appellate court and restored the order of the trial court, convicting the appellants," the bench noted. It noted the firm and Kumarsamy challenged the high court order before the apex court. The bench added that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes all offences under it compoundable. "In our opinion, this settlement agreement can be treated to be compounding of the offence. All the same, Section 320 (5) of CrPC provides that if compounding has to be done after conviction, then it can only be done with the leave of the court where appeal against such conviction is pending," it said. The bench said in cases where the accused relies upon some document for compounding the offence at the appellate stage, courts shall try to check the veracity of such documents. "For the same, in the present matter, this court vide order dated March 18, 2024 had asked the respondent-complainant to file an affidavit to bring on record whether or not any compromise has been reached between the parties," it said. The bench said an affidavit was filed by the complainant in compliance with the order where it was said that the accused have paid the amount to the satisfaction of the complainant, and that he has no objection if conviction of the appellants is set aside. "Now, when the accused and complainant have reached a settlement permissible by law and this court has also satisfied itself regarding the genuineness of the settlement, we think that the conviction of the appellants would not serve any purpose and thus, it is required to be set aside," it said.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Pendency of large number of cheque bounce cases a serious concern: SC

The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside the Central government's order blocking open-source messaging application 'Briar' in Jammu and Kashmir as it is suspected to be used by terrorists and could be a potential threat to national security. The high court observed that in the matters of national security, principles of natural justice can be given a go-by. "The interim order has been reviewed by the committee constituted under Section 7 of the Blocking Rules and as stated earlier, the committee consists of top officials of the Government of India. The blocking orders have been passed for 14 applications/ softwares, including the software/ application of the petitioner herein as it was being used by the terrorists and their supporters to disturb the security and sovereignty of the country. "The application of the petitioner has been blocked only in Jammu and Kashmir and the same can be used in all other parts of the country. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed," Justice Subramonium Prasad said. Sublime Software Ltd, the petitioner, sought direction to the Centre to produce and publish the order passed by it under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, blocking its open-source messaging application 'Briar' and also prayed for setting aside that order. It was stated that Briar operates on a technology in which a person can directly send a message to another person even when there is no internet connectivity. It added that the technology is crucial in times of emergency, natural calamities and catastrophic disasters in providing emergency healthcare and disaster management as it enables smooth communication between persons and authorities during times of distress. On the other hand, the Centre's counsel submitted that the software, which can work even when there is no internet connection, is suspected to be used by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. The application can be misused and can definitely be a potential threat to the national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, the Centre's counsel said. The high court in its order noted that rule 16 of the Blocking Rules provides that strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. "This court can take judicial notice of the fact that decisions taken at the highest level and for the benefit of the security and sovereignty of the country can be kept confidential," it said.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

HC dismisses plea to set aside order blocking messaging app in J&K over threat to national security

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed all State Bar Councils to take stringent disciplinary actions against advocates found advertising or seeking work through online portals, which is a direct violation of the Bar Council of India rules. The Bar Council of India has issued directives and cease and desist notices in compliance with a judgment pronounced on July 3, 2024 by the Madras High Court. The judgment underscores that the legal profession is a noble service to society and not a business driven by profit motives. In this regard, BCI directs the online platform to remove all listings, profiles, and advertisements related to legal practices by advocates immediately and no later than four weeks from the date of the notice. Cease and desist any operations enabling the advertisement or solicitation of legal practice by advocates. Submit a detailed compliance report outlining the actions taken to the BCI by August 10, 2024 Failure to comply with these directives will result in the BCI initiating legal proceedings and seeking appropriate penalties against the non-compliant organizations, stated BCI. All portals, online platforms, and advocates found in violation of Rule-36 of the Bar Council of India Rules are hereby issued a public notice to ensure strict compliance with these Rules immediately. Any advertisements contravening the aforementioned Rule must be withdrawn forthwith, stated BCI. Practices of online platforms offering lawyer services were examined and found to be in violation of the BCI Rules. The permissibility of lawyers advertising and soliciting work was scrutinized and deemed inappropriate. The involvement of online intermediaries in facilitating lawyer services was assessed and found to be in breach of professional conduct standards. The court ruled that online platforms cannot seek protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act for activities illegal under the Advocates Act and BCI Rules, added Bar Council of India's statement. Recently Madras High Court directed BCI to issue Circulars/Instructions/Guidelines to the State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct against the Advocate's advertising, soliciting works directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communication, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with the case where he is engaged or concerned. <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

BCI directs State Bar Councils to take action against lawyers advertising, seeking work through online portals

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Saturday observed that it is "grave danger" to describe the court as a "temple of justice and equate judges with Gods" as the task of judges is to serve the public interest. Addressing a conference on Contemporary Judicial Developments in Kolkata CJI Chandrachud said that "constitutional morality" reflects an institution's commitment of the Court system. "Too very often, when we are addressed as Honour or as Lordship or as Ladyship. There is a very grave danger when people say that the court is a temple of justice. There is a grave danger that we perceive ourselves as the deities in those temples," Chandrachud said. The CJI said that "he feels reticent when he is told that the court is the temple of justice because the temple postulates that the judges are in the position of a deity." "I would rather recast the role of the judge as a server of the people. And when you regard yourselves as people who are there to serve others, then you bring in the notion of compassion, of empathy, of judging but not being judgmental about others," the CJI said. He further emphasized on the word 'contemporary' and said that the word itself speaks about in the context of contemporary societal challenges which the judges face in the work they do. "This conference speaks on Contemporary Judicial Developments and strengthening justice through law and technology. The word 'contemporary' is very important because it does not speak about the work which we do in the abstract, but in the context of contemporary societal challenges which we as judges face in the work we do. We, therefore, look at the law and its intersection of technology from the perspective of the societal conditions in which those whom we serve exist in our societies because the true merit of our work lies in addressing challenges faced by those at whose feet we are intended to serve the common citizens of India," he said. He further said that the people exist in a federal structure that is marked by a great deal of diversity. "I was born in Mumbai, belong to a small village located 60-70 kilometers away from Pune. The work as judges we do in Delhi is to realize the importance of preserving the diversity of India. So how do we then dwell on the constitutional of morality? At one level constitutional morality is founded in the permeable values. The values which the Constitution, Preamble sets out," he added. The CJI said that C onstitutional morality addresses itself in every component of society. "The Consitution is not merely a dialogue between the states and its citizens, or Union or the states, or States and States. It is a dialogue within and between the societies. The Consitution Morality itself addresses to every component of society," he said. He said that even while sentencing anyone in a criminal case, the judges do that with a sense of compassion, since at the end, a human being is being sentenced. "So these concepts of constitutional morality, which I think, are the key, not just for the judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court but also for the district judiciary itself, because the engagement of the common citizens begins first and foremost with the district judiciary," CJI Chandrachud said. He further stressed on the relevance of technology in the functioning of the judiciary and said that the language is the central barrier to accessing and understanding verdicts by common people. "Technology can provide us with some answers. Most judgments are written in English. Technology has enabled us to translate them. We are translating 51,000 judgments in other languages," CJI said. <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

"Grave danger": CJI Chandrachud on equating court with temple, judge with God

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, granted one-week time to yoga guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved to issue a public apology in the misleading advertisements case, but said it was not letting them "off the hook" now. Both Ramdev and Balkrishna were present during the hearing and personally tendered an unqualified apology to the apex court. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took note of their apologies, but made it clear that at this stage it has not decided to "let them off the hook". "You are doing good work but you can't degrade allopathy," the bench told Balkrishna while interacting with him. Ramdev, who also interacted with the bench, said he had no intention to show disrespect to the court in any manner. However, the bench told Balkrishna that they (Patanjali) are not so innocent that they didn't know what the top court had said in its earlier orders in the case. "I am willing to give a public apology," senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Balkrishna, told the bench at the outset. The apex court asked Ramdev and Balkrishna, both of whom were present in the court, to come forward for an interaction with the bench. "They should feel they have a connect with the court," the bench said. The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing on April 23. Ramdev and Balkrishna had last week tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. In two separate affidavits filed in the court, Ramdev and Balkrishna have tendered an unqualified apology for the "breach of the statement" recorded in the November 21 last year order of the apex court. In the November 21, 2023 order, the top court had noted that counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved had assured it that "henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form". The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is "bound down to such assurance". The non-observance of the specific assurance and the subsequent media statements irked the apex court, which later issued a notice to them to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.<meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Patanjali ads case: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to issue public apology; says not letting them off hook yet

Tuesday, April 2: Exaggerated claims of unbelievable results with the use of consumer products are not new in the Indian advertisement industry. But, the law of the land does explicitly prohibit and punish misleading advertisements from time to time. One such case is grabbing headlines of late. Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, co-founder and managing director of Patanjali, respectively, appeared before the Supreme Court today for a hearing regarding a case involving misleading advertisements. So, what exactly happened? <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="A case of false and misleading advertisements" comment="subhead" text="A case of false and misleading advertisements">A case of false and misleading advertisements</cmsannotation> The case began in November last year when the Supreme Court, responding to a petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), cautioned Patanjali Ayurved against airing "false" and "misleading" claims in its advertisements about medicinal products. The IMA cited several ads that allegedly portrayed allopathic medicine and doctors negatively, claiming that companies producing ayurvedic medicines made disparaging remarks to deceive the public. Despite the Supreme Court's cautionary stance and prohibition on advertising products claiming to treat specific ailments under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, Ramdev and Balkrishna reportedly conducted a press conference, once again making misleading claims about Patanjali's ability to cure various conditions permanently. Subsequently, on February 27, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with Patanjali's continuous dissemination of false advertisements regarding medicinal cures and issued notices to the company, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. It also chastised the government for not taking action and “sitting with their eyes shut”. On March 21, the Court summoned Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna to personally appear before it on April 2 to address their failure to respond to the contempt notice regarding misleading advertisements about medicinal cures. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="What’s the latest update?" comment="subhead" text="What’s the latest update?">What’s the latest update?</cmsannotation> In today's hearing, the Supreme Court criticised Ramdev and Balkrishna for their "absolute defiance" in failing to submit proper affidavits of compliance and for disregarding legal directives. The Court also rebuked Patanjali's MD for describing the Drugs and Cosmetics (Magic Remedies) Act as "archaic". Noting that Patanjali's advertisements are in the "teeth of law" of the land, the Court warned Ramdev to prepare for potential consequences. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, presiding over the bench, declined to acknowledge the apology extended by Patanjali last month. Subsequently, Ramdev's attorney, reportedly with folded hands, reiterated that both Ramdev and Balakrishna were extending a personal and unconditional apology before the court. Finally, the Court has granted Ramdev and Balkrishna a final opportunity to file affidavits in one week and mandated their presence at the next hearing on April 10. <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

Government ‘sitting with its eyes shut’, says Supreme Court as Patanjali’s misleading advertisement case drags on

<ul><li>In order to meet the objectives, the Bar Council of India Rules for registration of foreign lawyers and foreign Law Firms in India has been framed.</li><li>The Bar Council of India stated that the standards of Indian lawyers in proficiency in law are comparable with international standards.</li><li>Hence, the legal fraternity in India is not likely to suffer any disadvantage in case law practice in India is opened up to foreign lawyers.</li></ul> The Bar Council of India(BCI) has allowed foreign lawyers and law firms to practice foreign law and diverse international law and international arbitration matters in India. The council said, "Taking an all-inclusive view, the Bar Council of India resolves to implement rules enabling the foreign lawyers and Foreign Law Firms to practice foreign law and diverse international law and international arbitration matters in India on the principle of reciprocity in a well defined, regulated and controlled manner." In order to meet the objectives, the Bar Council of India has framed the Bar Council of India Rules for registration of foreign lawyers and foreign Law Firms in India, 2021 under its rule-making powers under clauses (d), (e), (ic), (1) and (m) of sub-section (1) of section 7 and clauses (ah), (ag), (c), (e) and (h) of sub-section (1) of section 49 read with sections 24, 29 and 47 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and under all other enabling provisions. Bar Council of India is of the view that opening up a law practice in India to foreign lawyers in the field of practice of foreign law; diverse international legal issues in non-litigious matters and in international arbitration cases would go a long way in helping the legal profession/ domain grow in India to the benefit of lawyers in India too, the council said. Bar Council of India stated that the standards of Indian lawyers in proficiency in law are comparable with the international standards and the legal fraternity in India is not likely to suffer any disadvantage in case law practice in India is opened up to foreign lawyers in a restricted and well-controlled and regulated manner on the principle of reciprocity as it would be mutually beneficial for lawyers from India and abroad and these Rules are an attempt by the Bar Council of India in this direction. These rules will also help to address the concerns expressed about the flow of Foreign Direct Investment in the country and making India a hub of International Commercial Arbitration. In case, we sleep over the matter, the legal fraternity of India may be left behind in providing legal/professional expertise in accordance with the rule of law in a manner consistent with the best interests of this fast-growing class of clients in India, it said. Let us ensure that an opportunity for creating development and growth for the legal profession and in the legal sphere in India is not lost, stated BCI. Many countries have already allowed foreign lawyers to practice foreign law and diverse international legal issues and arbitration matters in their countries in restricted fields with specific and prescribed conditions, BCI notification said. Further, the notification stated, "It is also to be noted that the Bar Council of India is keen to progress on the idea of an MoU between the Bar Council of India, the Government of India (through Ministry of Law and Justice ) on one part and the Law Society of England and Wales, Government of U.K., Bar Council of England and Wales, on the other." "The U.K. Delegates have also assured the Bar Council of India that the Authorities in the U.K. are also keen and interested in the means of collaboration, cooperation and joint practice between Indian advocates and UK lawyers," added the notification. Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the International Commercial Arbitration introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration, stated BCI. The opinion of the Bar Council of India the legal profession in India has to rise to the occasion to meet the global changes in the Legal Arena caused by the migration of people from one country to another on such a large scale that had not been witnessed in earlier days. The world is becoming a global village. International trade and commerce are advancing at a great pace. The demand for an open, responsive and receptive legal professional dispensation mechanism in India from clients/public who operate in international and cross-country business is becoming severe day by day. Growth in the international legal work sphere and globalization of legal practice and internationalization of the law is increasingly becoming relevant to the growth of the legal profession and practices in India. On this development, Rajesh Narain Gupta, Managing Partner of SNG and Partners, said "Entry of foreign law firms will change the landscape for law firms in India. This would overall support in a big way the ambition of India to be more visible and valuable in a global context, especially in international trade and commerce." "This will be a game changer for mid-size firms and will also help the law firm in India to achieve more efficiency in talent management, International Arbitration technology, domain knowledge in a global context, and management," Gupta added. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/garment-producers-demand-200-crore-dues-from-kishore-biyanis-future-group/articleshow/98658896.cms">Garment producers demand ₹200 crore dues from Kishore Biyani's Future Group</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/delhi-govt-extends-ongoing-excise-policy-by-6-months/articleshow/98658915.cms">Delhi govt extends ongoing excise policy by 6 months</a> <meta content="cms.next" name="cmsei" />

law news

Top Stories