Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the externment orders were unsustainable, as FIRs for agitations without police permission could not justify such action, which infringed upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights of free speech, expression, and dignity.
The Court reiterated that “a public figure should not be so thin-skinned so as to complain about any criticism of his decisions and such criticism ought to be viewed with humility”.
In the present case, an FIR was filed against Ranveer Singh for allegedly mimicking the Daiva possession scene from the film Kantara during an event at IFFI, which was claimed to have hurt religious and cultural sentiments.
“The right to protest is protected, however, the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest is not.”
The Supreme Court emphasised that freedom of speech does not extend to vilifying communities, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscoring fraternity as a constitutional value. The Court’s observations came while examining objections to the ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ movie title.
“Disparagement through misleading and/or abusive statements, constitutes an unlawful interference in other party’s commercial goodwill and is actionable in law.”
The Fourth IBA India Litigation and ADR Symposium concluded with a panel discussion on privacy and the new Digital Personal Data Protection Act as well as a debate on whether social media was the only reliable source of news.
“Any attempt to stigmatize or marginalize an entire class of persons offends the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 and freedom of expression with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).”
by C. George Thomas* and Ansh Mittal**
“The ad-interim ex-parte injunction is not only unreasoned but also does not specify the time period during which it would be in force.”
“No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions, and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army.”
The present petition called for the regulation of online content that violates the right to life and dignity of persons with disabilities.
by C. George Thomas* and Ansh Mittal**
“The selective initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner while similar reports were aired by various media houses raises a serious question about the impartiality of the investigation and its underlying motive.”
The Court further stated that power of the Courts either competent Civil Court or Constitutional Court cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as was done in the instant case.
“Granting the right to abuse and defame a person will not make a democracy healthy and vibrant but will turn it into a mudslinging arena where the opposition and dissent will be crushed by abuses and slurs.”
This year was very busy for the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench as it dealt with the maximum number of cases and decided major matters like Article 370; Same sex marriage; Maharashtra political crisis; and more
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of Demonetisation; Freedom of Speech of Ministers; Guidelines to withhold life support of a terminally ill patients; Tussle between Delhi Government and Centre, and more. It also covers reports on Justice SA Nazeer’s retirement; the career trajectory & important decision of Justice CT Ravikumar; Explainers on important law points; five ‘Did You Know’ facts; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of January; and a throwback from SCC Archives.
The issue emerged after SP leader Azam called the unfortunate incident of 2016 gang-rape of a minor and her mother in Uttar Pradesh a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”. V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, however, BV Nagarathna, J, while agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions referred, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues.