Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> 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 <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> 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.

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

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court heard Nvidia's arguments against a class action securities fraud lawsuit.</li><li>Nvidia is accused of misleading shareholders about cryptocurrency mining-related sales.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case in which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-ai-employees-workers-2024-11">Nvidia</a> is trying to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. But some of the justices expressed concern over the chip giant's assertions.Nvidia petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit alleging that the company and its CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-huang-softbank-masayoshi-son-tech-stock-buyout-ai-microchips-2024-11">Jensen Huang</a> misled investors about its cryptocurrency mining-related sales to move ahead.Attorneys for Nvidia argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by a Swedish investment management firm, have not met the stricter pleading standards laid out by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit to proceed "creates an easy road map for plaintiffs to evade the Reform Act," Nvidia attorney Neal Katyal argued before the justices.The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or PSLRA was designed, in part, to curtail frivolous securities lawsuits."When a stock drops, all they have to do is find an expert with numbers that contradict the company's public statements, then allege the company keeps records that executives look at, and then argue those records would have matched the hired expert's numbers," said Katyal, who argued that the plaintiff's complaint relies on expert opinion and lacks company documents.When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what the plaintiff's complaint would look like in order to comply with the PSLRA, Katyal said it would have to answer "what did the CEO know" and "when did he know it.""I guess my concern is that you appear to be requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order to plead their case," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, adding, "part of my concern is that you seem to be wanting a bright line that says the contents of the documents are necessary."Justice Sonia Sotomayer said that she was "concerned" by Nvidia's petition to the court and told Katyal, "We often don't grant cert to error correct.""I'm not actually sure what rule we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases already say," Sotomayer said.Chief Justice John Roberts said the aspect that concerned him about both sides' arguments was that it was "a little black and white.""If I think that the positions on both sides are a little too absolute, how do you find sort of the sweet spot in terms of when the PSLRA is satisfied?" Roberts asked."It can't be just a little bit of direct evidence because that statute was intended to do something," Roberts said. "On the other hand, it seems to me, you can't insist on only the direct evidence before a complaint goes forward. So if I don't think it's black and white, how do I decide where the balance is?"A Nvidia spokesperson told BI the company "appreciated the opportunity to answer the Court's detailed questions this morning. We brought this case to the Supreme Court to protect shareholders and the economy from groundless lawsuits, and look forward to the Court's resolution of this matter."In his arguments, Deepak Gupta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the PSLRA "demands particularity.""Everyone agrees you can't circumvent the statute with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated expert opinions," Gupta said."But that's not what happened here," said Gupta. "On falsity, the Court of Appeals holding expressly rested on a combination of facts showing that a substantial part of gaming revenues came from crypto."This included accounts from former employees, detailed accounts of internal data and meetings, expert analysis, and "Huang's eventual acknowledgment of the crypto hangover, which sent the stock tumbling 28%," said Gupta.A district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.The plaintiffs allege in their brief to the Supreme Court that in 2017 when Nvidia's sales of graphic processing units (GPUs) were surging, the company and Huang "knew those record sales were due in substantial part to demand from cryptocurrency miners.""But for more than a year, Huang denied that mining-related sales were driving NVIDIA's revenue growth because he knew that the securities market looked askew at GPU sales to miners, which are notoriously cyclical," the brief says."Huang's strategy fell apart in late 2018, when cryptocurrency prices collapsed, GPU purchases by miners withered, and demand for GeForce GPUs shrank dramatically," the brief says. "NVIDIA then finally admitted that — contrary to Huang's previous denials—its record revenue growth had been largely due to mining-related demand for GeForce GPUs."Nvidia's attorneys argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that on public calls with investors, company executives "made clear that they believed crypto miners were buying both GeForce GPUs and Crypto SKUs.""This case aptly demonstrates the danger of allowing plaintiffs to guess at the pleading stage what internal company reports could have said," the petition says. "Plaintiffs speculate that internal NVIDIA sales reports would have reflected the amount of gaming segment revenue driven by sales to miners rather than to gamers."It adds, "But there is no basis in Plaintiffs' allegations to assume that this information was available to NVIDIA."In 2022, Nvidia agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $5.5 million to settle charges for "inadequate disclosures" regarding the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business. Nvidia agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's findings.A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June.

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword> 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 <keyword id="22185170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chembur-trombay-education" source="keywords">Chembur Trombay Education</keyword> Society's N G Acharya and <keyword id="22271323" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-k-marathe-college" source="keywords">D K Marathe College</keyword> imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' <keyword id="20068423" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fundamental-rights" source="keywords">fundamental rights</keyword>. It had said a <keyword id="42035" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dress-code" source="Orion">dress code</keyword> 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.

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

After the Supreme Court ruled on June 10 that a <keyword id="20100511" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Muslim-woman" source="keywords">Muslim woman</keyword> is entitled to claim <keyword id="22407616" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance-after-divorce" source="keywords">maintenance after divorce</keyword>, <keyword id="20066703" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Commission-for-Women" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Commission for Women" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="National Commission for Women">National Commission for Women</keyword> (NCW) Chairperson Rekha Sharma welcomed the decision and stated that all <keyword id="20013419" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="personal-laws" source="keywords">personal laws</keyword> related to women should be equal across all religions. Speaking to ANI, Rekha Sharma said, "I always say that <keyword id="19927138" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="womens-rights" source="keywords">women's rights</keyword> should be universal and not determined based on <keyword id="19969367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="religion" source="keywords">religion</keyword>. All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, you get alimony after divorce, so why should a Muslim woman not get it? I welcome what the Supreme Court has said." The Supreme Court on June 10 ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asserting that any discrimination against Muslim women in matters of alimony under the secular laws of the country would be regressive and against <keyword id="20809677" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-justice" source="keywords">gender justice</keyword> and equality. Earlier, the <keyword id="20066702" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCW-chief" source="keywords">NCW chief</keyword> wholeheartedly welcomed the Supreme Court's landmark ruling, stating that the decision is a significant step towards ensuring <keyword id="20250318" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-equality" source="keywords">gender equality</keyword> and justice for all women, regardless of their religion. The NCW Chairperson emphasised that the decision reinforces the principle that no woman should be left without support and protection under the law. The NCW remains committed to advocating for women's rights and ensuring that justice prevails for every woman in India, she emphasised. Rekha Sharma also addressed the "lewd" comment incident that occurred earlier regarding a picture of the widow of Kirti Chakra recipient Captain Anshuman Singh. NCW chief Rekha Sharma said, "It was a very derogatory comment that we saw on social media, and we immediately took suo motu cognizance of it. The police have filed an FIR against this person. However, the individual is most likely from Pakistan." "Many such comments are being made, and we are taking those comments very seriously and urging the police to file FIRs in those cases as well," she added. Delhi Police acknowledged the National Commission for Women's (NCW) letter to the Delhi Commissioner of Police, demanding the arrest of the man and submission of a detailed report to the panel within three days. The police said a complaint was received from the National Commission for Women, alleging that a social media user had made an extremely lewd and derogatory comment on a picture of the widow of a late soldier. Taking cognizance of the complaint and after a preliminary examination of its contents, a case FIR under Sections 79, BNS-2023, and Section 67 of the IT Act 2000 has been registered at the Police Station Special Cell, and an investigation is underway. Captain Anshuman Singh, a doctor, was posted with the 26 Punjab as a medical officer in the Siachen Glacier area. On the night of July 19, 2023, there was a fire incident at an Indian Army ammunition dump at the camp where he was posted. Captain Singh saw a fibreglass hut engulfed in fire and immediately acted to rescue four to five individuals trapped inside. He went inside the medical investigation room, which was also on fire, to retrieve the critical medical aid box but could not make it out due to heavy fire amid strong winds. He was awarded the Kirti Chakra posthumously. Captain Singh's wife, Smriti, and his mother received the award from President Droupadi Murmu.

All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions: NCW chief Rekha Sharma

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday issued notice to concerned respondents on the <keyword id="20054502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="West-Bengal-government" source="keywords">West Bengal government</keyword> plea challenging the <keyword id="19895346" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Calcutta-High-Court" source="keywords">Calcutta High Court</keyword> decision cancelling all Other Backward Caste certificates issued in <keyword id="19896517" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="west-bengal" source="keywords">West Bengal</keyword> 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 <keyword id="20636195" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="OBC-certificates" source="keywords">OBC certificates</keyword> issued in West Bengal after 2010 had directed the West Bengal <keyword id="20779164" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Backward-Classes-Commission" source="keywords">Backward Classes Commission</keyword> 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.

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

All the ways Donald Trump wins from the Supreme Court immunity ruling

With Indians rushing to file their ITRs ahead of the July 31st deadline that's coming up tomorrow, did you know that residents of just one Indian state are exempt from filing <keyword id="19901478" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="income-tax" source="keywords">income tax</keyword> returns, or paying taxes at all? Yes, <keyword id="19903425" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sikkim" source="keywords">Sikkim</keyword> is the only state in the country where the residents do not have to pay income tax. But why is that the case? Let's delve into it. An erstwhile princely kingdom for almost 333 years prior to its amalgamation, Sikkim merged into independent India in 1975, thereby becoming the country's 22nd state. But this happened on one condition- that it will be allowed to continue with its old <keyword id="21152786" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tax-laws" source="keywords">tax laws</keyword> post the merger. Sikkim has its own income tax manual, which stipulated that no resident of Sikkim was to pay taxes to the center. Hence, honoring the merger agreement, the Indian government granted a special tax exemption to Sikkimese residents from Indian income tax regulations. This changed in 2008, when the <keyword id="19908389" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Union-Budget" source="keywords">Union budget</keyword> repealed the state's tax laws. However, to maintain the exemption status enjoyed by the state's residents, it inserted section 10 (26AAA). Under this section, any income generated by a Sikkimese, be it from a source within the state, or by way of dividend or interest on securities, would be tax-exempt. At present, any individual who has been domiciled (noted as having fixed, principal and permanent residence) in Sikkim as of April 26, 1975 would be considered a Sikkimese, and hence, exempt from paying income tax. As per data from PRS Legislative Research, the state's estimated own tax revenue for 2023-24 stood at Rs 1,727 crore. However, if a Sikkimese has rental income from properties situated outside of the state, or has an income from source that is not located in Sikkim, it will be subject to relevant taxes. Nevertheless, the provisions of tax exemptions would not apply to any Sikkimese woman, who marries a non-Sikkimese or an outsider, on or after April 1, 2008. Market regulator SEBI has also exempted residents of Sikkim from mandatorily having a PAN card for investing in Indian stock markets, equities, cash market and even mutual funds. <h2>Decoding Section 10 (26) of the IT Act</h2>All these income-tax exemptions also extend to a few other regions in the country, but only if you are a member of the scheduled tribes. Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act applies to Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and <keyword id="19919396" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tripura" source="keywords">Tripura</keyword>, along with the North Cashar hills district, Karbi Anglang district, Chakma district, Mara district, and Lai District. Simply put, it stipulates that if you belong to the scheduled tribes and generate any income, the source of which lies in the above mentioned regions, or by way of dividend or interest on securities, your income would be tax-exempt. But any income generated outside of these regions would be taxable.

Did you know about the only Indian state exempt from paying any income tax? Know all about it here

In a landmark judgement, the <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court of India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court of India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has broadened the definition of crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court ruled that simply viewing <keyword id="20456028" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="child-pornography" source="keywords">child pornography</keyword> on the internet, without physically possessing or storing the material, is now a criminal offence under Section 15 of the <keyword id="19920672" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="POCSO-Act" source="keywords">POCSO Act</keyword> and provisions of the <keyword id="19930099" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="information-technology" source="keywords">Information Technology</keyword> (IT) Act. This ruling significantly expands the scope of the law to address the evolving challenges posed by digital platforms. <h2>A wider net</h2>In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated, "Any act of viewing, distributing, or displaying child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to 'possession' in terms of Section 15 of POCSO Act." This interpretation effectively settled conflicting verdicts from various high courts, notably overturning a Madras High Court decision that had quashed a POCSO case against an individual who had viewed child pornography but had not circulated it. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with senior advocate H.S. Phoolka's arguments, deemed the earlier judgement "egregiously erroneous." <h2>Crimes categorised</h2>In a further clarification, the Supreme Court divided crimes related to child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act into three distinct categories. The decision emphasised that law enforcement and courts must carefully assess each case to determine the specific category under which an offence falls. One critical insight from the judgement is that an offender cannot escape prosecution by simply deleting illegal content before an FIR is registered. The bench declared, "We clarify that there is no requirement under Section 15 of POCSO Act that ‘storage’ or ‘possession’ must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding, and no such requirement can be read into the said provision." <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417654" title="“Learned no lessons from Nirbhaya case”: Madhya Pradesh High Court criticises lenient treatment of crime-accused juvies in India" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>This means that even if an individual deletes the material before the authorities take action, they may still face <keyword id="20554971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="legal-consequences" source="keywords">legal consequences</keyword> based on the mere act of viewing or temporary possession. <h2><keyword id="23293250" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="automatic-downloads" source="keywords">Automatic downloads</keyword></h2>Acknowledging the complexities of <keyword id="20573374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="digital-media" source="keywords">digital media</keyword>, the Supreme Court recognised that certain child pornographic content might be automatically downloaded onto devices without the user’s knowledge. To address this, the court created a safeguard for those unaware of the offensive material stored on their devices. If a person discovers such material on their device through automatic downloads, they will not be prosecuted if they take immediate steps to delete it and report it to the authorities. However, the onus is on the device owner to act swiftly. Failure to delete or report the offensive material after becoming aware of it would constitute an offence under the law. To avoid the automatic downloading of problematic material, there are several proactive measures you can take. First, adjust your browser settings to disable automatic downloads and pop-ups, ensuring you have to approve any file before it is downloaded to your device. Regularly update your web browser and security software to benefit from the latest protections against malicious websites. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113146443" title="Karnataka HC rejects school teacher&amp;#39;s plea to quash POCSO case over filming of girl students" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Additionally, be cautious about the sites you visit, particularly those that seem suspicious or unfamiliar; stick to well-known, reputable sources. Additionally, consider using ad blockers or content filters that can prevent potentially harmful content from loading. Always be mindful of any unsolicited links in emails or messages, as these can lead to automatic downloads of unwanted material. Lastly, routinely monitor your device for any unfamiliar files and promptly delete anything that looks suspicious to minimise your risk of unknowingly storing problematic content. <h2>What this means for the future</h2>This judgement sends a clear message: India is taking a zero-tolerance approach toward child pornography in all its forms, whether stored, distributed, or merely viewed. The ruling adapts the legal framework to modern challenges, ensuring that perpetrators can no longer hide behind technicalities such as the absence of physical possession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation also places a burden on individuals to exercise responsibility in the digital world. Anyone who stumbles upon child pornography, whether intentionally or accidentally, must take swift action to avoid legal consequences. (With inputs from agencies)

You Searched For "all supreme court verdicts" and got 9 results

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

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

ANI

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Natalie Musumeci

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

PTI

All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions: NCW chief Rekha Sharma

ANI

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

ANI

All the ways Donald Trump wins from the Supreme Court immunity ruling

Insider

Did you know about the only Indian state exempt from paying any income tax? Know all about it here

Ira Alok Puranik

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides