Connect with us

Legal News

Legal: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India

Published

on

948219 supreme courtfile 1

Priyal Singh, Mumbai Uncensored, 9th March, 2023:

[1]Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India is a landmark case that examines the question of whether or not the right to access the internet is included in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

FACTS:

 The petitioner, Vivek Narayan Sharma, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to declare the Right to access the internet as a fundamental right under [2]Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner argued that the internet is an indispensable medium for exercising one’s constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to be informed.

LEADING ARGUMENTS/CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES:

The petitioner argued that the right to access the internet is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and that government restrictions on access to the internet violate this right. The petitioner also argued that the government should not restrict access to the internet. Additionally, he argued that the internet is an important medium for the provision of essential services such as education, healthcare, and others.

The government of India argued that the right to access the internet is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and that restrictions on internet access are required to maintain public order and ensure national security.

CASES BOTH PARTIES RELIED UPON:

The petitioner relied on several cases, including the [3]Puttaswamy judgement, which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and the [4]Shreya Singhal case, which struck down [5]Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised certain online speech.

The government relied on the case of Secretary, [6]Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, which determined that the right to broadcast was not a fundamental right. The [7]Anuradha Bhasin case dealt with restrictions on access to the internet in Jammu and Kashmir.

QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED:

The main question in this case was whether the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes the right to access the internet.

GROUNDS AND OPERATIVE PORTION IN THE JUDGEMENT/CONCLUSION :

The Indian Supreme Court has decided that the right to access the internet falls under the purview of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court also stated that any restriction on access to the internet must be in accordance with the law and the procedure that is established by the law, and it must be necessary for the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. The court went on to direct the government to publish rules and regulations for exercising the power to temporarily suspend internet services and held that any order passed to suspend internet services must be written and should be open to judicial review. In addition, the court held that any order passed to temporarily suspend internet services must be open to judicial review.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637,

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1,

Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161,

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, • Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 1


[1] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, (2019) 264 DLT 389 (ILR).

[2] Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(a), art. 21,.

[3] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1,.

[4] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1,.

[5] Information Technology Act, 2000, § 66A, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).

[6] Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161,.

[7] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India is (2020) 3 SCC 637

Legal News

Maratha Reservation: Navigating the Complex Path of Social Justice and Constitutional Limits in India

Published

on

By

images 1533300125082 maratha morcha1

Manak Sharma, Mumbai Uncensored, 7th November, 2023:

India’s Maratha Reservation is a difficult sociopolitical problem. India’s reservation policies have generally been the focus of divisive discussion and debate for a long time. These initiatives seek to close the nation’s social and economic gaps as well as historical injustices. The Maratha community’s inclusion on the list of socially and educationally backward classes is one such divisive reservation issue.

Historically, the Maratha community in India has experienced tremendous political and social change throughout, they have also held positions of power and influence. During colonial and post-independence times, the Marathas experienced challenges with representation and socioeconomic inequality. They started asking for reservations in government positions and educational institutions in an effort to allay these worries.

Maratha reservation supporters assert that the community has historically been marginalized and subjected to socioeconomic regression, especially in rural areas. They argue that in order to elevate the Marathas, affirmative action is necessary. Advocates draw attention to the disparities between Maratha and other communities’ employment and educational backgrounds. Social justice is one of the core tenets of the reservation system. Supporters argue that granting the Marathas a reservation would help ensure equal opportunities and make amends for past injustices. In Maharashtra, the Marathas have a long history of political influence, but they contend that reservation will guarantee their voice stays strong and relevant.

The argument put forth by opponents is that include the Marathas in the reserved group would go beyond the 50% constitutional cap on reservations. Legal problems and inquiries concerning the reservation policy in general may result from this. Opponents argue that seat reservations undermine merit-based hiring and admissions, potentially affecting the overall standards of education in public schools. Other disadvantaged classes fear they will lose their reserved seat allotment if Marathas too get in reservation list. In addition, critics contend that appropriate procedures and standards ought to be set in order for the Maratha community to recognize worthy candidates.

Election results and the political atmosphere in Maharashtra may be impacted by the Maratha reservation’s political significance. Political parties hope to gain support and influence from the Maratha community by making reservations for them. Given that the Marathas have long been a powerful political force, this action may have an impact on how political power is distributed. It might also have an impact on political parties’ alliances and electoral strategies, encouraging them to pay closer attention to the goals and concerns of the Maratha community. Therefore, the Maratha reservation has the power to influence state governance and policy, as well as change Maharashtra’s political environment.

In summary, the controversy surrounding the Maratha reservation in India serves as a symbol for the larger difficulties associated with putting reservation laws into practice. While it is true that some Maratha communities have experienced socioeconomic difficulties, the reservation debate raises difficult questions. It’s still difficult to strike a balance between righting historical wrongs and making sure that admissions and appointments are determined solely by merit. Subcategorization within the reservation framework, careful candidate selection, and ongoing assessment of the policy’s overall social effects may be the way forward.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Nawazuddin Siddiqui reached out to wife Aaliya Siddiqui for settlement; the couple finally getting a divorce

Published

on

Untitled design 3

Nomita Jeswasni, Mumbai Uncensored, 29th March, 2023:

After all the disputed happening between the couple from past few months, actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui and wife Aaliya Siddiqui are finally getting a divorce, confirms the wife. She also claimed that she will definitely fight for the kids’ custody as they do not want to live with their father. Nawazuddin also sued his brother Shamasuddin Siddiqui and Aaliya for defamation earlier this week. The actor has asked for 100 crore and a letter of apology.

Stating that she has not yet responded to Nawazuddin’s request for a settlement, Aaliya told “Divorce will happen, that’s for sure and I will also be fighting for the custody of both my kids. Nawaz has also filed for custody, but I will not let that happen. Both my kids want to stay with me and don’t want to live with him.”

Nawazuddin is a cruel and negligent father, said Aaliya, who claims that he sent away his young daughter alone with his “male manager” who hugged her “many times in an uncomfortable manner.” She also told that she was being harassed at the actor’s Mumbai residence. In relation to a property issue, Aaliya was also the target of complaints from Nawazuddin’s mother. Aaliya stated that she and their children Shora and Yaani were thrown out from the Mumbai home in March at a late hour.

Aaliya is currently staying in a rented apartment in Mumbai. She is looking for a new place to accommodate since she was asked to vacate the place by the end of the month but is unable to find a new place due to the ongoing family dispute.

In addition, Aaliya disclosed that her financial situation has prevented their children from attending school, but she has made efforts to enrol them in various classes to ensure they stay up-to-date with their education. She further shared that she intends to change her name back to Anjana Kishore Pandey after the divorce.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Legal notice to Netflix over ‘offensive remark’ made against actress Madhuri Dixit in Big Bang Theory

Published

on

Untitled design 6

Nomita Jeswani, Mumbai Uncensored, 27th March 2023:

A legal notice was sent to Netflix by political analyst Mithun Vijay Kumar for allegedly insulting Bollywood actress Madhuri Dixit in one of The Big Bang Theory’s episodes. Kumar claimed that the creators were encouraging sexism and misogyny in their work. He also ordered that the show be taken off the air for defaming the actress.

For those who are unfamiliar, Sheldon Cooper, played by Jim Parsons, compares Aishwarya Rai to Madhuri Dixit in the first episode of The Big Bang Theory. He refers to Aishwarya Rai as poor man’s Madhuri Dixit in one scene. Raj Koothrapalli, another character played by Kunal Nayyar, responds to his remark by saying, “Aishwarya Rai is a goddess, by comparison, Madhuri Dixit is a leprous prostitute.”

“It is important to hold companies like Netflix accountable for their actions and to ensure that they are sensitive to the cultural values and sentiments of the communities they serve. I strongly believe that streaming service providers have a responsibility to carefully curate the content that they offer on their platforms. It is their duty to ensure that the material they present does not include derogatory, offensive, or defamatory content. I was deeply troubled by the use of a derogatory term in one of the shows on Netflix – Big Bang Theory. This term was used in reference to the acclaimed actress Madhuri Dixit, and it was not only offensive and deeply hurtful but also showed a lack of regard for her dignity.” said Mithun Kumar in a statement

“I strongly believe that streaming service providers must take such issues seriously and act quickly to address any instances of offensive or defamatory content. Furthermore, streaming service providers should be proactive in preventing such content from being streamed. This can be achieved through clear guidelines and rigorous screening processes for all the content published. Ultimately, streaming services have a significant influence over the content that is consumed by millions of individuals, and with this influence comes a responsibility to ensure that the content they offer is respectful, inclusive, and free from harmful stereotypes. I hope that this incident will serve as a wake-up call to all streaming services providers to work towards creating a more equitable and respectful media landscape,” he concluded.

Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady’s CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory started in 2007. The show also starred Kaley Cuoco, Johnny Galecki, Simon Helberg, Mayim Bilaik, and other actors. 2019 saw the airing of the final episode.

Continue Reading

Trending