Litigation Tracker

Summary : NA

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that the defendant had prima facie "wilfully breached" his undertaking to the court, and sought an affidavit explaining his stand. Subsequent to that the defendant filed an undertaking in the court he will refrain from making such comments and also tendered an unconditional apology.

Link : Link

Summary : The court gave the petitioners time to implead defendants’ parent companies.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted interim injunction and observed that as the plaintiff has satisfied the three tests of granting an interim injunction, the filmmakers restrained from publishing the screenplay of the movie, or even releasing the movie in full or in parts including trailers, teasers or songs in theatres or any other media.

Link : Link

Summary : In the oral remarks Justice N Nagaresh stated that the dialogues used are atrocious and issued notice to the respondents.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, admonished him for his tweets.

Link : Link

Summary : The petition is yet to be admitted.

Link : Link

Summary : The court denied bail to the petitioners on the ground that that using social media against judges might be viewed as a conspiracy and attack on the entire institution. In addition they stated that the accusations made against the judges was aimed at scandalizing the courts.

Link : Link

Summary : The court is to hear the matter.

Link : Link

Summary : NA

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that a Parody has to be creative and the video made by the defendants is in poor taste and directed them to remove the same.

Link : Link

Summary : The bench has requested the Health Secretary to meet the representatives of the protestors, at the office of the Health Secretary.

Link : Link

Summary : NA

Link : Link

Summary : Court has given time to NIA to file a response.

Link : Link

Summary : Court has allowed interim protection to the petitioners, that if they are arrested they shall be released on furnishing surety money.

Link : Link

Summary : Court has issued summons.

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that it was not inclined to pass any order on the application for removal of the shoes, since, as per court, such an order may amount to grant of the final relief.

Link : Link

Summary : The court modified the earlier interim order and observed that to the extent that the petitioner, upon joining investigation with the investigating officer, if he is sought to be arrested, would be released on interim bail, upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to his satisfaction, till the next date of hearing before this court

Link : Link

Summary : Court issued summons to those entities and also asked Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal to join as Amicus Curiae.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted the bail application but also observed that no one has the right to hurt the religious sentiments of others in the name of the right to freedom of speech and expression and that Lord Rama & Krishna reside in the heart of Indians.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted bail to the petitioner and observed that it was doubtful as to whether the contents of the Facebook Post alone would constitute a cognizable offence.

Link : Link

Summary : The court stayed the arrest of the petitioner on the grounds that he could make a strong prima facie case warranting interference of the court.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted him interim protection.

Link : Link

Summary : Show cause notice issued.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted an anticipatory bail to the accused and observed that unless it is ascertained, whether it was a fake account of the applicant or not, it would not be appropriate to deny him the protection. Court also directed the investigation authority to block the account.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted him bail and observed that it does not appear to this Court that there was anything such in the posts which would require his further custodial detention beyond 31 days, in the interest of investigation of the case.

Link : Link

Summary : Court has sought response of the state.

Link : Link

Summary : Court has sought response from the government.

Link : Link

Summary : Plaint has been filed.

Link : Link

Summary : NA

Link : Link

Summary : Court has issued notice to Sanjay Singh.

Link : Link

Summary : Court has issued a notice to the government in this regard.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted the pre arrest bail to the students on the grounds that there was no material to show that the accused was part of the rally and gave anti national slogans.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted the bail and observed that he is not a person who will be able to hide or abscond from the investigation or trail. And there is no recovery that is to be made. The court also observed that freedom of speech and secularism is the foundation of a democracy.

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that both the works share the same theme. However, it is true that the two are distinct and individual treatments of the same subject and theme developed by different individuals in their own way, as a result of their individual intellectual exertions. The two scripts prima facie are distinctly different treatments of the same theme. The court also cited R. G. Anand v Delux Films and others case.

Link : Link

Summary : The court allowed the SG to file a detailed affidavit and explain in detail the law and procedure followed by it for monitoring and interception of phones.

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that arrest of Union minister was justified however custodial interrogation was not needed as the statement was made in front of media. And while granting bail in one FIR the court imposed a condition on him that he shall not commit a similar type of offence.

Link : Link

Summary : To this the court observed that the matter does not involve any urgency, and the petitioner can do without a twitter account. He can switch to any other social media platform.

Link : Link

Summary : Court verbally directed the police to not take any adverse action against Sony.

Link : Link

Summary : The court stayed the proceedings.

Link : Link

Summary : The court issued notice to the Rajya Sabha Media Advisory Committee.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted bail on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged hate speech to promote enmity between different groups was done in the presence or at the behest of the applicant/accused.

Link : Link

Summary : Court stayed Rules 9(1) adn (3) of the IT Rules, which mandate that digital news media and online publishers should adhere to Code of Ethics prescribed by the rules. Court held that the Code is prima facie violative of article 19(2). It was observed that the restrictions placed were beyond the scope of reasonable restrictions under 19(2).

Link : Link

Summary : The challenge is on the grounds of breach of privacy, violation of fundamental rights under article 19(1)(a) and 21. It also contends that certain provisions of the rules are ultra vires the parent act. The petition also seeks an interim relief of stay on the rules. The Union has asked for time to file a short affidavit as reply to interim relief plea. The union has also filed a plea in the supreme court to transfer all the petitions challenging the rules to the SC.

Link : Link

Summary : It was contended that use of such a spyware has wide reaching ramifications. It will have wide reaching ramifications, it is a matter of national security. According to the petitioners, the forensic analysis of several mobile phones belonging to persons targeted for surveillance by the Security Lab of Amnesty International have confirmed Pegasus-induced security breaches. They also seeked direction to UOI to disclose if the government of India or any of its agencies have obtained licenses for the spyware.

Link : Link

Summary : The court has now remanded four people including Ashwini Upadhyay in judicial custody. And investigation has initiated.

Link : Link

Summary : On 10th August fresh affidavits were filed by twitter with regard to compliance with the rules and the central government informed the court that Twitter seems to have appointed permanent officers in compliance with the IT Rules. However, they asked for a short adjournment to file an affidavit in the matter.

Link : Link

Summary : The plea seeks to quash the entire defamation proceedings before the Magistrate court as being unsustainable in law. It claims that the Magistrate wrongly issued process under section 204 of the CrPC and summoned Kangana in the criminal complaint based on witness statements collected through a police inquiry instead of examining the witnesses himself.

Link : Link

Summary : Twitter submitted that it has already removed the post and locked Rahul Gandhi’s account. The court appreciated this prompt step. The petitioner also demanded initiation of an action against Rahul Gandhi for violating section 23 of POSCO and the guidelines laid down in Nipun Saxena v UOI wherein SC held that personal information and particulars of a victim or child in conflict with law cannot be disclosed in Media.

Link : Link

Summary : The transfer applications accuse the families and lawyers of taking afvantage of the covid 19 situation and making false complaints through media to build pressure on taloja jail authority and achieve their “intention”. On the other hand the petition challenging the transfer of accused has claimed that the transfer violates principles of natural justice, as the NIA special judge passed transfer orders without issuing a notice and giving a hearing to them. They also claimed that Transfer to different prisons could have severe repercussions on the accused in preparing their defence against a charge sheet that runs into over twenty thousand pages. The court however refused to stay the transfer order, as they observed that earlier accused had made complaints regarding the treatment by the jail authorities. However, those jail authorities are no longer in that jail now.

Link : Link

Summary : The court has allowed continuation of anticipatory bail till 17th December based on the status report filed as so far there was a prima facie favourable view for him by the RBI and there is no need for custodial interrogation.

Link : Link

Summary : The challenge is that the rules are violative of Article 19(1)(a) and 14, as they are vague and arbitrary. It is also contended that these rules are ultra vires the parent act to the extent it regulates the publishers of news and current affairs content.The court agreed to post the matter to a further date as a plea has been filed in the SC to transfer all the matters from Hcs to the SC.

Link : Link

Summary : The petition argues that the sessions court not being a special court under NIA cannot take grant extension and take cognizance subsequently for scheduled offences under NIA. Thereby, making the order by sessions court null and void and making petitioners eligible for default bail. However, the state contended that a sessions court has the power for extension when a case is not being investigated by the NIA but by state police.

Link : Link

Summary : The court found that no actual violence or breach of the peace occurred at any point on account of her raising a voice in the line of her interpretation of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. There is no presence of mens rea which is essential element under section 124A and 153A. the FIR in question is registered only on account of other similar such offences registered in the State of Jharkhand. The court also said that the seized material is available on the internet and no incriminating material was found against her.

Link : Link

Summary : The hearing is going on on the matter of maintainability.

Link : Link

Summary : The court quashed the order and noted that it was without the authority of law and beyond the Magistrate's authority. The court also observed that If the grievance of the citizen against local MLAs are to be dealt with in this manner, not only the citizen needs to be protected, even the response needs to be asked from the concerned MLA, whether he supports such an order. The court also ordered for transfer of SDM.

Link : Link

Summary : The court has asked the government of Jammu and Kashmir to file a response to point out the provisions of law under which the news portals, it at all are required to be registered or licensed.

Link : Link

Summary : Court dismissed the petition.

Link : Link

Summary : Court granted the bail application stating that it is a matter of trial to detemine the nature of contents of the speech and the intention behind it. It further noted that investigation is complete in both the cases and then granted bail.

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that there are 3 important issues in this petition which are of public interest. First, the privacy, dignity of the individual concerned as also her right to fair trial. The second aspect would be the sovereignty/integrity of the country and whether there could be reasonable restrictions that could be imposed considering the nature of the investigation that is currently taking place. The third aspect would be the right to free speech and the right of the public to know

Link : Link

Summary : It has been contended by the petitioners that the rules are that the rules were violative of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy and also ultra-vires the parent statute, the Information Technology Act. It is also contended that the rules are vague and indeterminate thus liable to be struck down. The court observed that unless there is a stay imposed by the SC on hearing of these pleas court will not stop the hearing. Filing of transfer petition cannot be a reason to stop the hearing.

Link : Link

Summary : The petition contends that the traceability provision under rule 4(c) will force it to build the ability to identify the first originator for every message sent in India on its platform upon request by the government forever. It will also force them to break end to end encryption. This will not only breach the privacy of its users but also create a chilling effect.

Link : Link

Summary : The petitioner contended that certain articles were published with an intent to increase their readership by sensationalizing news, and reporting false statements concerning her and the criminal investigation that is ongoing against her husband Raj Kundra. The court then directed removal of certain videos from media and news channels, that are prima facie defamatory. However, it did make an order and observed that a deeper scrutiny is required. It was also observed that freedom of press must be balanced against right privacy of an individual.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : It was argued before the court that release of such movie is to commercially exploit the life of his son. It also affects his right to fair trail and will breach the fathers right to privacy. Before the division bench it was argued that the OTT platform had fasely submitted that the movie has been released as 72 minutes in the movie are missing. It was alleged that this was done so that an injunction order is not granted in the favour of petitioner. The court observed that the parties have the liberty to argue the case before the single judge bench as after the release of the movie circumstances have changed and the father can put forth his grievances with regard to the movie before the single bench.

Link : Link

Summary : In this regard, the Court noted that there is no distinction between the case of Kishor and Erendro Leichombam. Both of them put up similar Facebook posts, critical of the utility of cow dung and cow urine in treating the Coronavirus. As the Supreme Court squarely covers the case in an identically situated person, the court suspended the order passed by Manipur government under section 3 of NSA.

Link : Link

Summary : The petition contends that rules are in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Further they violate the law laid down in Shreya Singhal. It also contended that under the garb of regulating media and bringing in certain checks and balances want to indirectly curb, restrict and prevent the free circulation of information which is pivotal for the growth of any democracy.

Link : Link

Summary : It was argued by the petitioner that the entire proceeding is malicious and to cause harassment as in September 2020 petitioner had submitted a complaint with regard to the matter relating to death of his wife. The court then observed that the matter required consideration and stayed the proceedings before Additional CJM till next hearing

Link : Link

Summary : The court notes that commission of an offence under 124A is doubtful in the case and granted bail.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : Court found that several sections added in the FIR deal with entirely different issues other than defamation. Court then stated all the sections mentioned in the FIR and how they are unrelated.

Link : Link

Summary : The court quashed the notice and called a tool of harassment. It further added that UP Police issued the coercive notice without ascertaining if Manish Maheshwari, the MD of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd (TCIPL), had any control over the contents posted in Twitter. Thereby holding the notice to be mala fide and not maintainable. The court gave police liberty to seek statements of Maheshwari as a witness through virtual mode.

Link : Link

Summary : The corut granted his release for an execution bond of Rs 1000. It was also observed that continued detention of the petitioner would amount to a violation of Article 21.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : The counsel argued that criticism of constitutional policy and governmental policy cannot be termed as seditious. The speech was made in the context of CAA-NRC and the FIR has taken selective passages to give it an illegal context.

Link : Link

Summary : While rejecting the bail application court held that there is a fine balance between the societal interest and personal liberty and that has to be maintained. It held that the allegations made against the applicant are prima facie true. The court cited Watalia Judgment to refuse to test the admissibility of letters and email which are being used as incriminating material. It was also contended that some of the statements which are being relied upon by the prosecution are hearsay and cannot be admitted, however court found substance in those statements. Court also refused to look into personal and academic background of the Dr Teltumbde.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : WhatsApp has now informed the court that it will bring in the new Privacy Policy when the Data Protection Bill is enacted and the policy will be in accordance with the new Act.

Link : Link

Summary : Court after taking note of the fact that he had received bail in two other cases and the length of his detention allowed his bail application.

Link : Link

Summary : The court did not quash the proceedings and furhter said that it would remain open for the petitioners to file a pre-arrest bail in the matter.

Link : Link

Summary : The court rejected the application primarily on the basis of the alleged material collected against him during the investigation. The court noted that he along with co accused committed acts which affected communal harmony. It also observed that it had been found out that he is a worker of PFI and has been indulged in anti-national acts. Additionally Kappan had submitted that he wanted to proceed to Hathras in the capacity of a journalist but the identity card found with him was of a news platform which had stopped operations in the year 2018.

Link : Link

Summary : The court dismissed the petition stating that the court cannot decide the validity of a remand order ina habeas corpus petition.

Link : Link

Summary : In the petition it has been contended that the Prison superintendent has misinterpreted the article written in Caravan. Rules 17 and 20 provide for the subjects on which prisoners may communicate. It included personal matters and excludes any matter likely to become the subject of political propaganda or any criticisms on the administration of the prison or any reference to other persons confined in prison. The case of petitioners is that due to misinterpretation of the article which was not related to any political propaganda this ban has been placed on the accused. NIA has not received a copy of the pleading so the court directed the petitioners to serve a copy to them.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : The court stayed the probe stating that the petitioner cannot be attributed any act of inciting violence, disturbing peace or harmony amongst different groups on the basis of the said post. The allegations of the conspiracy are also in my prima facie opinion not based on any material or even allegations in the FIR.

Link : Link

Summary : The court stayed his arrest and adjourned the matter for next hearing to decide the writ for quashing the petition.

Link : Link

Summary : The court observed that reports have been allowed to access court proceedings but with specific well known restrictions. The court observed that prima facie Udaipur times knew about the restrictions in place.

Link : Link

Summary : The court has posted the matter to hear the other side.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted teh injucntion restraining KRK from publishing defamatory content against Hindi film actor Salman Khan, his family members or business associates, till final disposal of the defamation suit. The court observed that KRK "exceeded" his limits of freedom, that his statements were prima facie "libellous" and that "irreparable" loss will be caused to Salman Khan if KRK was not injuncted.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted the bail as there was no apprehension of arrest at this juncture.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : It was contended by the petitioner that he was merely expressing disaffection towards the governemtn and did not call for a violent overthrow of the government. The public prosecutor contended that the Judicial officer was fully aware of the consequences of his statements. He also submitted that under Rule 15 to 17 of AP Civil Services rules o serving officer of the Government can speak about any aspect relating to the functioning of the oo Government or make any comments on superior officers except with the permission of the State Government. However, the court granted him bail observing that the crime is based on a statement that is said to have been made in a television debate that is recorded and cannot be altered or tampered with and further, a period of 60 days has already elapsed, and as such, the question of any further tampering with or affecting the investigation would not arise.

Link : Link

Summary : The court directed he state government to issue comprehensive directions to the State police, to ensure that before investigation is completed no information is divulged by the police to the media about the ongoing probe.

Link : Link

Summary : While granting bail to Asif the court observed that no prima facie case has been made out under the said sections of UAPA, therefore section 43D does not apply. While deciding the issue for section 15, 17 and 18 court held that the term terrorist act used in UAPA even though somewhat vague must be construed strictly. It must partake the essential condition of terrorism and it cannot be applied casually to criminal acts. It was also contended that the court must consider bail under section 437 of Crpc and not 439 when an appeal is made under section 21. But the court held that once it is clear that section 43D would not apply then the court is entitled to consider bail under section 439.

Link : Link

Summary : Court allowed interim relief to the plaintiff and directed them to block its posts on twitter and other social media handles. It observed that such accusations “can serve as a death knell for a fair news channel”. It further held that “the depiction in the infographic being ex-facie untrue, evidently defamatory, will continue to damage the reputation of the Plaintiff, if not ordered to be taken down."

Link : Link

Summary : The court issued notice to Facebook and Instagram.

Link : Link

Summary : HC asked the petitioner to make himself available for interrogation and posted the matter for 18th june.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted the interim relief of bail and observed that considering the facts and circumstances it was evident thatmismanagement of the authorities was flashed on Twitter by applicant No.1 who is the journalist and other applicant is related to him.

Link : Link

Summary : HC held that the tweets and other posts made on other social media platforms were prima facie defamatory. It directed Tractor2Twitter to not post such remarks on twitter and also directed twitter, Facebook and Instagram to take off such posts.

Link : Link

Summary : It was contended that the accused was using his position to defame Hindu religion and propagate Christianity. Court directed him to not use IMA as a platform for propagating any religion and rather to concentrate on welfare of medical fraternity.

Link : Link

Summary : The petitioner contended that he was being a responsible journalist and acting in larger interest of public. It was also contended that such an action is a violation of freedom of press under article 19(1)(a). The court granted the petitioner interim protection from arrest or anyother coercive action from police till next hearing.

Link : Link

Summary : Court allowed the anticipatory bail and gave a direction that Petitioner shall not participate directly or indirectly in any manner in publication of any type of articles in social media including newspapers which could cause provocation for breach of peace and tranquility of the society. The court also observed that the newspapers must verify all the facts in an article before publishing them. Especially related to Covid 19 considering the prevailing circumstances.

Link : Link

Summary : The court denied the bail and observed that prima facie the post was made the accused as no material was placed to show that his account was hacked.

Link : Link

Summary : The court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction and observed that "The plaintiff being an exclusive owner of the copyright in the said literary work, therefore, possesses all rights to it in any material forms. Defendants are illegally circulating copies of e-newspaper owned by the plaintiff which violate the rights of the plaintiff." Court also issued notice to WhatsApp, telegram adn certain individuals who are allegedly administrators of various groups on the platforms and are indulged in sharing of the said e-papers.

Link : Link

Summary : Court ordered a blanket protection against any form of piracy of the movie, and has restrained any unauthorised storing, reproducing, communicating, disseminating, circulating, copying, selling, offering for sale or making available copies of the film on WhatsApp or any other platform.

Link : Link

Summary : -

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted bail and observed that considering the fact that the incident took place in 2019 and the petitioners have suffered incarceration for that period the court is inclined to grant bail.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted her bail stating that the statement prima facie appears to be her personal views. It was also held that due to the second wave of covid 19 further continuation of her detention may not be necessary in the interest of ongoing investigation.

Link : Link

Summary : Court issued notice. It also observed that this is the worse time to strike. The question of theri demads being legitimate is not to be discussed. The question here is whether the strike is legal. The court observed that apart from legality or illegality in present difficult situations placed due to Covid-19, such strikes will violate Fundamental Rights of citizens under Article 21, of the Constitution of India.

Link : Link

Summary : The court granted him bail observing that Khalid cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in this case on the basis of such asketchy material against him, the Court also went ahead to observe that chargesheeting Khalid in the present case on the basis of such an insignificant material was unwarranted.

Link : Link

Summary : The court quashed the FIR.

Link : Link

Summary : Court noted that no untoward incident had taken place. It further remarked that Constitution of India gives its citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble peacefully and without arms, to form Associations and Unions and to move freely throughout the Territory of India under Article 19 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Constitution of India. Therefore a peaceful protest cannot be held to be illegal.

Link : Link

Summary : Not Provided

Link : Link

Summary : The court denied the bail and observed that denied the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of trying to promote enmity between two religious communities by spreading propaganda about the foundation laying ceremony of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

Link : Link

Summary : The court examined S.153A’s contents and stated that there had to be an “intent” to precipitate disorder between at least two communities.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/allahabad-hc-denies-pre-arrest-bail-to-man-for-allegedly-spreading-propaganda-against-ayodhya-ram-temple-391581.pdf

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kannada-news-portal-pratidhvani-moves-karnataka-high-court-challenge-new-it-rule-171983?infinitescroll=1

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/mj-akbar-priya-ramani-acquittal-criminal-defamation-delhi-high-court-adjourns-hearing-171708

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-riotsdelhi-high-court-asif-iqbal-tanhas-appeal-against-rejection-of-his-bail-by-delhi-court-171355?infinitescroll=1

Summary : In the bail petitions, Mr. Karnan, submitted an affidavit that he would not indulge in making such remarks or intervene in the investigations, and if he does so, the bail could be cancelled without providing notice. Besides, he had some health complications from COVID-19. The Court, therefore, accepted his plea and released him on bail after furnishing bond worth Rs.50,000.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/karnan-bail-order-madras-high-court-390959.pdf

Summary : The Allahabad HC issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh state government seeking its response on the petition filed by Mr. Khan, posting the matter for further hearing on April 6.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/anti-caa-speech-at-amu-dr-kafeel-khan-files-plea-to-quash-criminal-case-allahabad-high-court-seeks-up-govts-response-171643

Summary : The Delhi Court issued summons to Arnab Goswami, CEO, Republic TV.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/delhi-court-issues-notice-to-republic-tv-on-defamation-suit-filed-by-ex-govt-officer-390697.pdf

Summary : The court noted that the Lookout Circular shouldn’t have been issued give that he was a resident of the US and didn’t deliberately leave India to avoid arrest. There was no case under S.10 to impound the passport, and the S.41A notice under the CrPC which the police claimed the petitioner had defied [therefore forcing them to issue the LOC] couldn’t have been complied with due to the COVID-19 situation, the court noted.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/press-freedom-tripura-hc-390645.pdf

Summary : The court rejected this argument as prima facie unconvincing and stated that the liberty to do what one wishes was fettered by the law, and that the custodial interrogation was important to bring to light certain facts. Thus, the anticipatory bail was denied.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/republic-day-violence-delhi-court-denies-bail-to-man-who-carried-big-sword-at-red-fort-172071

Summary : - The Karnataka High Court overturned the order passed by the JMFC granting leave. It noted that the JMFC had acted ‘mechanically’, without ascertaining if the offences were made out. During the proceedings, the judge orally rebuked Ms. Ranaut, stating that celebrities had to be careful in making such statements.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kangana-ranaut-moves-karnataka-high-court-to-quash-fir-on-tweet-against-farmers-protest-170509?infinitescroll=1

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ambani-explosives-scare-thane-sessions-court-denies-interim-protection-to-api-sachin-waze-in-suv-car-owners-murder-171127?infinitescroll=1

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kangana-ranaut-javed-akhtar-defamation-case-sessions-court-metropolitan-magistrate-court-171047

Summary : The HC has ordered via an and-interim order news channels to adhrered to the Programme Code under S.5 of the CTN Act and Rule 6 of the CTN Rules.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/defamation-390415.pdf

Summary : The MM sought for the Action Taken Report from the Delhi Police in this matter.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/plea-for-fir-against-kangana-ranauts-tweets-defamatory-to-sikh-community-delhi-court-delhi-police-171002

Summary : The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in Mr. Dwivedi’s favour preventing Mr. Khan from publishing any defamatory reviews/other content against him.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nikhil-dwivedi-krk-bombay-hc-390372.pdf

Summary : The HC extended interim protection from arrest to Ms. Purohit.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/tandav-row-allahabad-high-court-extends-interim-protection-from-arrest-for-amazon-content-head-aparna-purohit-in-lucknow-fir-till-april-6-390358.pdf

Summary : The HC extended interim protection from arrest to Ms. Purohit.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/tandav-row-allahabad-high-court-extends-interim-protection-from-arrest-for-amazon-content-head-aparna-purohit-in-lucknow-fir-till-april-6-390358.pdf

Summary : The State assured that no coercive action would be instituted against Mr. Osmani until 15 March 2021. The court also ordered Mr. Usmani to cooperate with the investigating agencies.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-sharjeel-usmani-elgaar-parishad-case-170944?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The court adjourned the hearing in respect of the anticipatory bail applications; however, their interim protection till 15 March, such that no coercive action could be taken against them.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/toolkit-case-delhi-court-extends-interim-protection-for-shantanu-muluk-nikita-jacob-till-march-15-170930

Summary : The HC stayed the PCI’s notification. It noted that if the effect of the notification was to ban all Government ads from publication in the HMVL, then the proportionality of the move had to be ascertained. This could otherwise be detrimental to the financial health of HMVL and curb its right under Art. 19(1)(a), the court agrees with HMVL’s submissions.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/hindustan-times-delhi-high-court-pci-390150.pdf

Summary : The Court on 4 March directed the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to proceed against those news channels that had violated the Programme Code.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-rakul-preet-singh-news-broadcasting-standards-authority-nbsa-170726?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The High Court ordered Google to suspend the Ad Words account of HEG due to this violation.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-makemytripmmt-happyeasygocom-170680

Summary : Court notes that a case for ‘apprehension of arrest’ was clearly rendered by Mr. Chaudhuri’s counsel. Thus, a 10 day transit anticipatory bail was granted so that Mr. Chaudhuri could approach the relevant magistrate in Delhi to obtain anticipatory bail.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/goa-based-activist-subham-kar-chandhuri-granted-10-days-transit-anticipatory-bail-by-bombay-high-court-in-toolkit-case-170642

Summary : Due to the pandemic, the court accepted the request made by Dr. Rao’s counsel and granted additional time until 5 April, 2021, to furnish the solvent sureties. Otherwise, it would amount to denying

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bhima-koregaon-bombay-high-court-bail-condition-varavara-rao-release-on-temporary-bail-170544?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The petitioner claimed that the court had issued notice in another similar petition, to which the court asked why there was a separate petition filed now. The court was not willing to give notice to the government given its assurance that the new Personal Data Protection Bill would protect against such privacy policies. Saying thus, it granted four weeks to the Union Government to file a reply in this petition.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-plea-against-whatsapps-privacy-policy-right-to-privacy-170534

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kangana-ranaut-moves-karnataka-high-court-to-quash-fir-on-tweet-against-farmers-protest-170509?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The court ordered the investigation to be fair and unbiased. It also stated that any misleading by Mr. Sidhu would mean that appropriate action could be taken.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/deep-sidhu-red-fort-violence-farmer-protests-proper-police-probe-170456

Summary : The court ordered the investigation to be fair and unbiased. It also stated that any misleading by Mr. Sidhu would mean that appropriate action could be taken.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/deep-sidhu-red-fort-violence-farmer-protests-proper-police-probe-170456

Summary : Ad-interim bail was granted to Mr. Yadav and Mr. Khan.

Link : livelaw.in/news-updates/munawar-faruqui-case-madhya-pradesh-high-court-grants-ad-interim-bail-to-nalin-yadav-and-sadakat-khan-170450?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The High Court adjourned the petition and stated that the plea would be considered in early March by another bench,

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-hc-pleas-against-aaj-tak-misreporting-tractor-rally-170432?infinitescroll=1

Summary : Initially the HC adjourned the matter to 26 Feb 2021. Later, the HC granted bail to Ms. Kaur.

Link : https://indianexpress.com/article/india/nodeep-kaur-granted-bail-by-punjab-haryana-high-court-7205542/ https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/dalit-labour-activist-nodeep-kaur-bail-plea-punjab-haryana-high-court-adjourns-hearing-till-february-26-170315

Summary : The HC stated that there was no prior sanction required for offences under the IPC- it was required only for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Saying thus, it redirected the Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/tipu-jayanti-tweets-karnataka-high-court-a-complaints-anant-kumar-hegde-ct-ravi-170358?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The MP/MLA court issued summons to Mr. Shah to appear either personally or through a representative before the court on February 22. However, since the summons was issued to the BJP Office in Kolkata instead of being directed to Mr. Shah’s residence in Delhi, the matter was redirected to the lower court, i.e., the Metropolitan Magistrate.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/amit-shah-abhishek-banerjee-defamation-trinamool-mp-summons-west-bengal-court-170146

Summary : The High Court stayed the incarceration of the directors and the writers of the series, while at the same time issuing notice to the state government and the complainant, for their reply.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mirzapur-allahabad-high-court-389407.pdf

Summary : The Supreme Court issued notice to the producers, Excel Entertainment, the Government and to Amazon Prime Video

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-mirzapur-ban-web-series-amazon-prime-video-168714

Summary : The Sessions Court admitted the revision petition.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/comedian-kunal-kamra-national-flag-insult-contempt-up-court-170068

Summary : The HC granted interim anticipatory bail to Ms. Chopra.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/action-should-be-taken-against-investigating-officer-who-leaks-private-data-of-accused-:-karnataka-high-court-171147?infinitescroll=1 https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/obscene-video-case-bombay-hc-grants-pre-arrest-bail-to-sherlyn-chopra-101615263140435.html

Summary : -

Link : https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/obscene-video-case-bombay-hc-grants-pre-arrest-bail-to-sherlyn-chopra-101615263140435.html

Summary : The Court rejected the suit’s allegations and dismissed the suit, agreeing with Mr. Bhansali’s counsel’s arguments that there was no proof that the complainant was the adopted son of Ms. Kathiawadi, and has no locus standi hence.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/mumbai-court-babuji-shah-gangubai-kathiwadi-sanjay-leela-bhansali-alia-bhatt-170024?infinitescroll=1 https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/mumbai-court-rejects-suit-against-alia-bhatt-s-gangubai-kathiawadi-1770497-2021-02-18

Summary : The Kochi Civil Court stayed the release of the film.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kochi-court-stays-release-of-film-on-maradu-flats-demolition-170023?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The court noted the ‘serious’ allegations against the appellant, who it deemed was ‘shown’ to be part of an ‘unruly mob’, who broke the barricades and attacked police personnel. The photo capturing the appellant sitting on the car with his flag, “prima-facie show(s) that he had an active role to instigate unruly mob.”

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kannada-news-portal-pratidhvani-moves-karnataka-high-court-challenge-new-it-rule-171983?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The court granted them interim protection from arrest.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/report-on-farmers-death-up-court-grants-interim-protection-from-arrest-to-siddharth-varadarajan-and-ismat-ara-of-the-wire-169778

Summary : In connection with the violence in north-east Delhi during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the investigating authorities claimed the existence of a broader conspiracy to achieve the same, naming Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, among others, as part of the conspiracy. Of the 18 persons named in the FIR, only two were out on bail, and Mr. Khalid and others were in judicial custody.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/report-on-farmers-death-up-court-grants-interim-protection-from-arrest-to-siddharth-varadarajan-and-ismat-ara-of-the-wire-169778

Summary : The court noted that the accused had merely forwarded the image and had not created the content. The court then discussed sedition law and stated that it couldn’t be used as an executive tool to quieten ‘disquiet’. Noting that there was no call for violent acts, nor an incitement to violence in the uploaded content, the court said that S.124A couldn’t be invoked. Thus, bail was granted. As for forgery, the court said that a prime requirement was the dishonest intention to post fraudulent videos online. This was absent, and so was the condition that the person created the video under the authority of someone who had not authorized said creation. Thus, bail was granted.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/state-v-swaroop-389262.pdf

Summary : The High Court granted protection from coercive action to Mr. Jha. It also issued notice to the State government and ordered them to respond to Mr. Jha’s plea within 6 weeks.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/aashram-prakash-jha-rajasthan-high-court-interim-protection-169963

Summary : The House Court took cognisance of the second charge-sheet that the Delhi Police have lodged.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/2016-jnu-sedition-case-delhi-court-summons-kanhaiya-kumar-umar-khalid-anirban-bhattacharya-others-on-march-15-169926?infinitescroll=1

Summary : The court issued notice to WhatsApp seeking a response as to why interim injunction should not be granted. It declined to give ex-parte interim injunction since similar matters were pending before the Supreme Court. It also said that the plaintiff was always free to use another app, and therefore ex-parte injunction wouldn’t be granted.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/west-bengal-court-whatsapp-notice-388722.pdf

Summary : The House Court instructed the Delhi Police to file the investigation report.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-riots-harsh-manders-plea-seeking-fir-against-bjp-leader-kapil-mishra-court-v-169565

Summary : -

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/newslaundry-defamation-times-group-times-now-bombay-high-court-100cr-169582

Summary : The court surveys cases on S. 8(1)(h), and states that the RTI Act is a ‘statutory expression’ of Art. 19(1)(a), and examined A.19(2) and stated that S8(1)(h)’s restriction on revealing certain information, falls under Art.19(2) – the ‘public order’ exception. RTI is a rights-based enactment which parallels a ‘welfare measure’. Therefore, S.8 must be strictly construed to prevent the right’s violations. Mere existence of investigation process can’t be grounds for rejecting the information. Valid reasons [that prosecution would get ‘impeded’ by releasing the information] should be stated while rejecting the application, which was not the case here, Hence, the CIC’s order was quashed.

Summary : The court examined the evidence including call records, photographs, and the charge-sheet which they held indicated the role of the appellant in causing the mob to damage property and disrupt essential supplies. This was categorised as a ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA 1967. On the argument of violation of the fundamental right to speech and expression via protesting, the court said that the evidence on record showed an intent to disrupt transport and ‘paralyze government machinery’. The court refers to the fundamental duty under Art. 51-A to safeguard public property and prevent violent protests, which they stated must be ‘exercised harmoniously’ with the free speech rights under Art.19(1)(a) and its restrictions under Art. 19(2). Setting fire to vehicles and blockading public roads thereby preventing essential supplies from moving, are not ‘peaceful democratic protests in law’. Thus, there is no deprivation of free speech rights and the right to life under Art. 21, and there were prima facie reasonable grounds to deny bail.

Summary : The court examined the evidence including call records, photographs, and the charge-sheet which they held indicated the role of the appellant in causing the mob to damage property and disrupt essential supplies. This was categorised as a ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA 1967. On the argument of violation of the fundamental right to speech and expression via protesting, the court said that the evidence on record showed an intent to disrupt transport and ‘paralyze government machinery’. The court refers to the fundamental duty under Art. 51-A to safeguard public property and prevent violent protests, which they stated must be ‘exercised harmoniously’ with the free speech rights under Art.19(1)(a) and its restrictions under Art. 19(2). Setting fire to vehicles and blockading public roads thereby preventing essential supplies from moving, are not ‘peaceful democratic protests in law’. Thus, there is no deprivation of free speech rights and the right to life under Art. 21, and there were prima facie reasonable grounds to deny bail.

Summary : The court examined Art. 51A duties to promote brotherhood and harmony, and states that individual liberties [like freedom of speech, as claimed by the applicant] must be balanced with fundamental duties to other citizens. It stated that mens rea must be established in a S.295A case, and observed that the evidence like the statements of the complainant, witness, video footage etc. showed the intent to make 'scurrilous' remarks against a religious class. Noting the possibility of collection of further evidence in the ongoing investigation, the court ultimately stated that there was no case for granting bail. While concluding, the court provided an obiter that the atmosphere of peaceful co-existence postulated by the fundamental duties cannot be ‘polluted’ by ‘negative forces’. The judgement has been stayed [not overruled.]

Summary : The court summarized the holdings of cases relating to the procedure to be followed during inquiries, which stated that penalties like withholding of pay [as in this case] which may adversely affect the person will require a regular inquiry, where evidence is recorded in the employee’s presence, and he/she is allowed to inspect the documents. Moreover, the court noted that the employee must have been provided the opportunity to show cause against the reasons for which the State intends to penalize him/her. The court then cites Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, in which it was held that even government servants had the right to participate in strikes and demonstrations as part of their rights under Art.19(1)(a). The court notes that ‘no reason’ was provided while passing the order punishing the employee; evidence wasn’t recorded in his presence; nor was there any opportunity of cross-examination. The PNJs were therefore violated. Just because he was part of the demonstration, he cannot be penalized as that would violate his rights of free speech and expression. The writ was therefore allowed.

Summary : The court notes that Art. 19(1)(a) doesn’t guarantee merely the right to free speech and expression, but the right to freedom of speech. It noted the importance of the right, as well as several instances of media transgressing the ‘lakshman rekha’ by abusing this freedom. It then delves into disussing rule of law and how ‘no price is too high’ to ensure administrative justice to preserve the rule of law. Although free speech is a democratic essential, with the media playing a ‘salutary’ role in the same, the media must ensure they don’t cross the ‘permissible legal and Constitutional means’. Thus, they have a ‘duty’ to publish and print news based on the ‘true and correct versions’ of incidents, removing any ‘distortion/embellishment’.

Summary : The court stated that the fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a) cannot ‘sacrifice’ the right to dignity under Art.21. Dignity in the context of hate speech would mean a person’s status as a ‘social equal’, and as a ‘bearer of human rights’, with rights of ‘participatory equality’. Freedoms couldn’t’ be used to stoke disorder and ‘challenge the integrity and unity’ to incite violence; without public order present, the freedom of speech of many others would be curtailed. It also remarked that political speeches about government policies need greater protection to uphold democracy, and mere falsity in the accusations made in the speeches wouldn’t constitute ‘hate speech’. It then differentiated between free speech and hate speech, based on their content, intent and the harm caused. Hate-speech content includes the ‘expression, language and message’ like symbols, etc., which cause ‘psychosocial hatred’ or ‘physical violence’ against a group. The harm element may be the ‘loss of self-esteem’, mental stress, etc. While the general standard for judging these is the ‘reasonable man’, ‘some categories of speakers’ could be provided a lower standard due to their historical deprivation and oppression, and courts have to be ‘more circumspect’ while penalizing such speech. The court then discusses aspects of tolerance and how there cannot be unlimited tolerance against intolerant views. The court stated the need to examine whether the speech would incite ‘imminent lawless action’ [essentially, the need is for a proximate causal connection] to conclude whether the speech constituted hate speech that had to be curbed, as such speech would cause long-term consequences.

Summary : The court, after a review of judgements, said that names are ‘facets’ of the right to expression under Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 21. The court then examined whether the CBSE regulations could be ‘law’ having a statutory force, and not merely an ‘executive or departmental instruction’, because only laws could deny the right to free expression. It concluded that CBSE is a ‘society’ and its rules don’t have a ‘statutory flavour’ and cannot be considered ‘law’ to impose reasonable restrictions. In any case, the court seemed to doubt whether, even if the CBSE regulations were law, they would constitute reasonable restrictions on free expression. Thus, the court ruled that the petitioner could change his name, but to prevent hardships to both the Board and the petitioner, the court cited the case of Rayaan Chawla to hold that the CBSE shall change the name of the petitioner to ‘Kabir Jaiswal alias/nee Rishu Jaiswal’ in their records.

Summary : The court noted that there was evidence showing the ‘instrumental’ role of the petitioner in training people in CPI [Maoist] camps, and that the accused had ‘conspired’ together to commit seditious offences, apart from trying to close access to essential supplies. He had ‘provoked’ the public to vandalize property as well. Therefore, S.15 of the UAPA Act was prima facie applicable here, apart from causing enmity among groups by spreading disaffection. After examining the evidence, the court rules the prima facie existence of a conspiracy. The court towards the conclusion cites the Fundamental Duty to prevent damage to property and prevent violent protests, which have to be harmoniously exercised with Section 19(1) rights. It mentions that road blocking, burning public offices and vehicles, preventing goods from traversing across the border, among others, cannot be ‘peaceful’ in their democratic protests. Thus, there was no case made out for violation of the accused’s Article 21 rights.

Summary : The bail application was allowed, but under stringent conditions. A perusal of the statement of the victim made it clear that the offence could be proved only through oral evidence. For that purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required to be necessary.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137350186/

Summary : In the light of the discussion in the case, and in the fact situation obtaining in the case and also upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner was in custody for the last 52 days, the application stood allowed by the Court. Accordingly, it was provided that the petitioner shall be allowed to be released on bail.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17849404/

Summary : Merely Inciting Feelings Of One Community Without Any Reference To Any Other Community Cannot Attract Section 153A IPC. Real intention to incite one group or community against another is absolutely essential.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187996138/

Summary : The Petitioner-accused had submitted that mere insulting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to other community or group cannot constitute an offence. The Bench held that "on close reading of the contents of the speech in the contents of the complaint, there are two religions. One is the Muslim community and another one has been indirectly in the form of innuendo, it has been stated with reference to the other religions."

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176641596/

Summary : Several social media account holders trolled the Mumbai Police Commissioner on different platforms like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook and used abusive language against him and the force. Hence, an FIR was registered against those account holders under Section 67 of the IT Act. Most of these accounts are fake and DCP, Cyber Crime, Mumbai police said that they will be taking action against all those fake account holders.

Link : https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/firs-against-social-media-accounts-for-trolling-mumbai-police-commissioner/article32780196.ece

Summary : FIRs were registered in States of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana and Jammu & Kashmir in response to the broadcasts made by Republic TV linking Congress to the Palghar incident. In the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief contended that the criminal actions resulted in the infringement of his fundamental right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, the State claimed that the petitioner is trying to ignite communal violence here by putting Hindus against minority and is creating communal violence.

Link : https://www.siasat.com/sc-grants-arnab-goswami-three-week-relieve-arrest-1878866/

Summary : On May 14, a couple of teachers found out that the accused persons had created a WhatsApp group called 'Mia Khalifa' wherein they had added all the students as well as the teachers of the some other WhatsApp groups, which were created to share study material during lockdown. As per the prosecution, this new WhatsApp group was used to share 'obscene' remarks and materials with the members of the group, which included minor girls as well. The case diary states that, 'Students and teachers tried to restrain the two Petitioners for sending the obscene messages, but the Petitioners paid no heed'.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/arrested-for-sharing-porn-on-whatsapp-how-young-boys-in-jharkhand-are-languishing-in-prison-due-to-arbitrary-denial-of-bail-159387

Summary : -

Link : https://www.theleaflet.in/what-was-the-mysterious-conspiracy-of-delhi-police-against-devangana-kalita/

Summary : A police team nabbed the accussed following a raid under Operation P-hunt. Palakkad SP directed Alathur police to carry out the raid under Operation P-hunt to arrest people involved in circulating and watching child pornography. The police also seized the mobile phone which was used to circulate the child porn content.

Link : https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/crime-beat/bjp-activist-arrested-for-circulating-child-porn-content-through-social-media-1.5108520

Summary : The MP while addressing an event in his home-district said, "If they (BJP') win a repeat in the Lok Sabha, our democratic constitution as we understand it will not survive as they will have all the elements they need to tear apart the constitution of India and write a new one". He added, "..that new one will be the one which will enshrine principles of Hindu Rashtra, that will remove equality for minorities, that will create a Hindu Pakistan and that isn't what Mahatama Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and great heroes of freedom struggle fought for". The complainant alleged that Tharoor's remarks were an insult to India which is a secular nation and that the politician had even refused to apologise for his comment.

Link : https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arrest-warrant-against-shashi-tharoor-over-hindu-pakistan-remark/article29085457.ece

Summary : In a Karnataka school, allegedly owned by RSS leader Prabhakar Bhat, students were seen rushing towards a huge poster of the Babri Masjid while a narrator urges them to tear down the structure over a loudspeaker and says, “With enthusiasm, Hanuman bhakts with Hanuman’s anger, they bring down Babri structure. Bolo Shri Ramachandra ki, Jai!”. The students reportedly put up a ‘Ram Temple’ after tearing down the poster. The event was attended by Union minister and BJP MP Sadananda Gowda along with Puducherry governor and former cop Kiran Bedi.

Link : https://thewire.in/law/fir-against-rss-leader-for-babri-masjid-demolition-re-enactment-in-school

Summary : It was alleged that the Petitioner, by way of her film, had attempted to create a caste conflict, in effect disturbing public tranquility. Resisting the FIR, Divya had submitted that the film was an attempt to spread awareness in order to completely abolish the practice of manual scavenging. The Court ruled that, ""… There is no allegation in the complaint to show that there is promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups or communities. The only reference made in this complaint is to one particular community. Therefore, even if an extreme case is taken, at the best, the allegations made in the complaint will only amount to defaming a particular community and nothing more. It is not known on what basis the respondent police registered the FIR for the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC." Moreover, it was added that, "In the considered view of this Court, the allegations made in the complaint does not make out a case under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC. In the first place, the documentary in question is intended to create an awareness among general public for abolition of manual scavenging. If in the documentary, any community has been named, it will not amount to an offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC."

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/cbi-director-is-the-accused-cbi-investigating-the-case-delhi-court-says-it-is-violation-of-principles-of-natural-justice-165993?infinitescroll=1

Summary : Ms. Priyanka Sharma, a BJP Yuva Morcha leader in West Bengal was arrested for sharing a meme in which she transposed the face of the Chief Minister of West Bengal Ms. Mamta Banerjee onto the body of Ms. Priyanka Chopra at the Met Gala in New York, USA. FIR was reportedly lodged in the Cyber Cell of the Howrah City Police. After arrest and upon production before the Magistrate, she was sent to 14 days' judicial custody. The cessation of legal representation in the state led to the accused approaching the SC by way of a habeas corpus writ petition. The Bench directed that the detenue be enlarged on bail immediately. However, the order also directed the accused to tender a written apology for sharing the meme. Media reported that the Court initially made the bail consequent upon the apology, only to later remove that condition and direct the apology to be made independent of the bail.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/columns/mamta-banerjee-meme-what-for-did-the-sc-ask-priyanka-sharma-to-apologise-145069

Summary : The enactment of CAA triggered wide range of protests through out the country. In the light of this, on 12 Decemeber 2019, Dr. Kafeel Khan and Dr. Yogendra Yadav adressed a gathering of about 600 students at the Baba Sayeed Gate of the Aligarh Muslim University. The police immediately lodged a criminal case against Dr. Khan under the section 153A of the IPC. The offences under the sections 153B and 505 were added to the same case later on. The allegations are, through his speech Dr. Khan provoked the religious sentiments of all the Muslim students present at the time and tried to incite hated enmty and disharmony against the other community. It was alleged that the speech by Dr. Kahn was a deliberate attempt to distort the public order in the dictrict of Aligarh. It was further alleged that post-the speech, on 13th December 2019, around 10,000 students from AMU attempted to march towards the Aligarh city but they were stopped by the Police, PAC and RAF forces. The allegatios presented also include that because of Dr. Khan's speech, the students of AMU, on 15th Decemeber 2019 ,attempted to break open the Baba-e-Syed gate of the University with an intention to march towards the city of Aligarh and when the police tried to tstope them, the students pelted stones at them and fired with an intention to kill. Due to this, there was a signififcant amount of public propoerty that was damaged.

Link : https://thewire.in/rights/kafeel-khan-arrest-cases-timeline

Summary : The FIR was filed on the basis of the version of one of the attendees of the Elgar Parishad that happened on 31 December 2017. It was an event to honor the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. The following day i.e 1 January 2018, tens of thousands of Dalits had gathered at the Bhima-Koregaon war memorial to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the historic victory of the British colonial army, which had a substantial Dalit contingent, over the Hindu upper-caste Peshwa community. The attendees were allegedly attacked by the upper caste groups, resulting in one death while several others were wounded. Two right wing activists were accused of inciting the violence and one of them was arrested and subsequently released on bail. The other was never questioned. The focus gradulally shifted toward the Elgar Parishad event happened the very before day. Pune police started investigating through that line and claimed that the event had maoist connections which was the main reason for the violence that broke out on the 1st of January 2018. It was alleged that during the coursee of investigation several names came out as part of a deep rooted conspiracy to overthrow the Indian Government. The Bombay High court declined to grant anticipatory bail to Dr. Teltumbde by holding that Section 43D(4) of UAPA Act excludes the applicability of section 438 CRPC. Thus, the applicability of Section 438 of CrPC is excluded by the aforesaid provision. The Supreme court bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah dismissed the challenege to the Bombay High court judgment and held the same as High court.

Link : https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/elgar-case-activist-teltumbde-arrested/articleshow/75148112.cms?from=mdr