Government Asks Social Media Platforms About Their Compliance With The IT Rules, 2021
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of India has written to social media platforms, requesting that they provide details on their compliance with the new "Information Technology Intermediary (Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules, 2021."
The Central Government gave social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others a three-month window to comply with the new social media rules, which ended yesterday.
What is your say on the case?
PIL challenging E - pass requirement during Covid dismissed by Jharkhand High Court
While dismissing a PIL challenging the requirement of an E-Pass during Lockdown, the Jharkhand High Court made a significant observation: "Public interest litigation does not mean that which is interesting as a gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community has a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights are affected."
What is your say on the case?
Expulsion from the church from marrying outside the community is Unconstitutional
The practice of expelling a member of the Knanaya Catholic Church for marrying outside the community is unconstitutional, according to a civil court in Kerala, because it violates the right to marry under Article 21 and the right to religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
The church's practice of compulsive endogamy is a violation of the right to marriage, which is a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, according to the Additional Sub Court in Kottayam. The Court also ruled that the forfeiture of membership in the Knanaya church for violating endogamy is a violation of the constitutional right guaranteed by Article 25.
What is your say on the case?
The traceability rule will put the privacy of journalist, activists and politicians at risk: WhatsApp to Delhi HC
WhatsApp claims that the traceability clause in Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021 will "force it to construct the ability to identify the first originator for every communication transmitted in India on its platform upon request by the government forever," according to its petition. WhatsApp claims that the requirement does not pass the requirements set out in Art. 21 of the Constitution, is obviously arbitrary in breach of Art. 14, violates the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, and violates section 79 and 69A of the Information Technology Act.
What is your say on the case?
Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act is protected by Article 19(2): Central Government to Karnataka HC
Section 2(c)(i) of the Constitution, according to the central government, is protected by Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits the legislature to put reasonable
restrictions on free speech.
The Central government told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday that section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which provides for criminal contempt of court, is a legitimate limit on freedom of speech and expression and is important to maintain the independence of the judiciary. Section 2(c)(i) makes it illegal to publish anything that could embarrass or undermine the courts' authority. Article 19(2) of the Constitution, according to the Centre, protects the abovementioned clause.
What is your say on the case?
Right to hear bail plea in reasonable time: Allahabad HC seeks time-bound procedure
The Allahabad High Court has stated that "the failure of the police officials to deliver timely instructions to the Govt Advocate/ Additional Govt Advocate in bail applications creates a delay in the hearing of the bail applications, and sometimes results to the unwarranted imprisonment of an accused in jail." As a result, Justice Ajay Bhanot's Single Bench has asked the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to ensure that a transparent and unambiguous mechanism for providing instructions to the GA/AGA in bail applications before the High Court be established.
What is your say on the case?
Acquittal judgement blocked from Google and Indian Kannon: Right to be forgotten of an American citizen of Indian origin
Given that a judgement involving drug offences, in which he was acquitted, was still available online, the petitioner underscored the challenges and disadvantages he experienced in the professional sector.
While awarding interim relief to an American citizen of Indian heritage who was acquitted of criminal charges, the Delhi High Court recently recognised the right of an individual to be forgotten.
The Court ordered Google and Indian Kanoon to remove the verdict copy from the internet until the case's next hearing date.
What is your say on the case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
