Keeping Pace with Legal Change
BJP leader Shazia Ilmi sued journalist Rajdeep Sardesai for defamation after a video from a heated India Today debate on the Agniveer scheme allegedly violated her privacy. The Delhi High Court ordered the video’s removal, citing privacy rights, while partially upholding defamation claims.
The Supreme Court mandated a single-shift NEET-PG 2025 exam, addressing fairness concerns over the two-shift format. The decision ensures equitable competition, upholding Article 14’s right to equality, as varying question paper difficulties and normalization issues risked arbitrariness, impacting candidates’ rankings and rights.
Spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has approached the Delhi High Court to protect his personality rights, a form of intellectual property, against unauthorized AI-generated content. The petition addresses the misuse of his name, image, and voice through deepfake technology and rogue websites, which exploit his reputation for commercial gain, including fraudulent product endorsements and misleading narratives. The court issued an interim order to remove such content, emphasizing the balance between free speech and reputational rights. This case highlights the growing legal challenges surrounding AI-driven identity misuse and the protection of personality rights in the digital era.
: Section 48 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 establishes liability for abetting an offence in India, even if committed abroad, provided the act is an offence under Indian law. It ensures cross-border accountability, targeting instigation or assistance from India, regardless of the crime’s location.
Section 47 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 addresses abetment in India of offences committed abroad, holding abettors liable if the act would be an offence in India. It extends jurisdiction, ensuring accountability for instigation or aid, regardless of the crime’s location.
Abetment, under Section 46 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, involves encouraging, aiding, or conspiring in an offence, even if it’s not committed. Liability persists regardless of the abetted person’s intent or capacity. Examples include instigating murder or theft, holding abettors accountable.
Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, defines abetment as intentionally aiding, instigating, or conspiring to commit an offence. It holds abettors liable for facilitating crimes through acts or illegal omissions, ensuring accountability for those who encourage or assist in criminal activities.
Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, clarifies that private defence must avoid harm to innocent bystanders. It restricts excessive force, ensuring actions remain proportionate and directed solely at the aggressor, prioritizing public safety while upholding the right to self-defence within legal limits.
Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifies that the right of private defence of property begins upon reasonable apprehension of danger to property and continues until the threat subsides. It ensures proportionate measures to safeguard property, balancing immediate response with legal restraint.
Section 42 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, permits private defence of property using non-lethal harm when the threat does not warrant death. It emphasizes proportionate force to protect property from unlawful acts, ensuring reasonable measures without excessive violence, balancing defence and restraint.
