Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash Case on observations about BJP-controlled states and constitution.
Introduction Recently, the Allahabad High Court denied the quashing of a criminal case against a man who was accused of…
Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Introduction Recently, the Allahabad High Court denied the quashing of a criminal case against a man who was accused of…
This article focuses on rhetoric used by leaders of MNS based on language in Maharashtra that presents a challenge over constitutional rights, that is, freedom of speech versus freedom of order. It outlines the existence of Indian laws that bear relevance to hate speech and examines past and contemporary examples with attention to the damages on the basic rights and the position of the regulators to maintain conformity to the constitutional ideals.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind asked the Delhi High Court to ban a movie on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal called the Udaipur Files. They claim that the trailer of this film causes communal disharmony, biases a community and is against the certification parameters of movie industry which may affect the order of the general populace before the movie is released on July 11, 2025.
This article discusses the decision of the Bombay High Court in TikTok Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, in which the request to declare TikTok a well-known trademark was denied because it posed a threat to national security. The case brings out the issue of intellectual property law and national interest.
The order of preventive detention that had been issued against Rajesh, a financial operator in Kerala, was overturned by the Supreme Court, which further emphasized that preventive detention should not be used in lieu of regular criminal processes. The verdict emphasizes constitutional protections, which ensure that such powers be utilized in a proportionate manner and in accordance with the law.
As misinformation jeopardizes public safety and democracy in India, urgent penal laws are needed to define and punish malicious deliberate fake news. Clear definitions, proportionate penalties, platform accountability, and safeguards for free speech will deter rumor-mongers and protect public trust.
The purpose of this page is to provide an explanation of Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These sections outline the local jurisdiction, subordination, and powers of Judicial and Executive Magistrates in straightforward English. Additionally, this article includes all of the most important provisions along with practical illustrations.
When news organizations indulge in warmongering, they are not only participating in sensationalism; they are also putting the peace of the general people in jeopardy and straining the bonds that strengthen international relations. There are a variety of safeguards that are included in Indian legislation in order to avoid incitement and foster responsible journalism. These safeguards include criminal fines for hate speech, statutory broadcasting requirements, self-regulatory codes, and judicial oversight. To maintain the right to freedom of expression while also restricting the misuse of media influence, it is vital to have vigilant regulation, ethical self-restraint on the side of broadcasters, and an informed audience that is prepared to reject irresponsible narratives. All of these things are equally important.