Maratha Reservation Law Struck Down For Exceeding 50 Percent Cap
The Court in the case of Dr.Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, held that the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney case is that reservation should not exceed 50% and it is only in extra-ordinary circumstances and also that the Article 14, 15 and 16 enshrine the reasonableness that needs to be maintained.
The concept of reservation was incorporated only to make sure that benefits are given to the socially and backward classes and to have a caste-less society. The power to decide the SEBCs does not lie with the State governments anymore after 102nd Amendment. The constitutional validity of Maratha quota was challenged before the Court in this case to which it was stated that there are no extraordinary circumstances to increase the reservation and struck down the Quota.
India Travel Ban Challenged in Australian Court
The Prime Minister had banned all arrivals from India and also the returnees from India were subjected to jail time and heavy fines. The decision has caused widespread outrage stating the decision to be racist and abandoning of vulnerable citizens overseas including the cricketers who had travelled to India for the IPL.
The decision was challenged on its constitutionality on the grounds of proportionality and reasonableness. Even though the challenged decision is unreasonable but there is little chance for the decision of the Court to not side with the public health expert of the government as there aren’t many rights prescribed in the Constitution. The Court has accepted the challenge for hearing.
Hong Kong Leader: Flagged Fake News Laws as Worries Over Media Freedom Growth
Hong Kong under the directions of Beijing imposed National Security Law in the year 2020. The Government of Hong Kong is working to tackle misinformation, hatred and lies by implementing fake news legislation with the growing concerns over media freedom.
The red lines of the government are likely to cover the sector of journalism as done before in the other sectors like education. The statements by the leader Carrie Lam surfaced after various news agencies took down contents from online platforms. She gave the statement that the issue is very serious and making legislation on fake news would require huge research.
Defamation Charges Against Pradeep Poonia Withdrawn
The founder of White Hat Jr, Karan Bajaj had approached the High Court accusing Pradeep Poonia of making defamatory and baseless comments against the platform which allows children to learn coding. It was also contended that he was running a telegram channel to attack the business and was making various comments on the quality and number of teachers.
The Court had passed an interim order directing Pradeep to remove certain defamatory content and restraining him from accessing or hacking the internal communication of the business platform. However the appellant has withdrawn the suit of defamation against Pradeep before the Court.
Bombay High Court: Extreme Point of View Does not Amount to Hate Speech
An FIR was filed against Sunaina Holey who was charged under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly creating enmity between two religious groups. There was no mention of any community or religion so there is no question of trying to create enmity between communities.
The Court while deciding the case stated that a person has the right to express one’s views and just because the expression of the person is extreme does not make it a hate speech. The actual author of the video was not registered for any offence and the post of Holey was only criticising the actions of the members in the crowd and the Court did not find any mens rea on the part of the accused. The Court was of the opinion that the materials taken at face value do not constitute an offence, thus, the court quashed the FIR.
Appeal Against Ramani Acquittal Adjourned
Former Union Minister and journalist M.J. Akbar had filed an appeal against the acquittal of Priya Ramani who had been charged with defamation. The High Court while adjourning the appeal stated that there are important matters to deal with and this is not a special category.
Priya had accused Akbar of sexual harassment to which a suit for defamation was filed by Akbar stating that his reputation is being tarnished by the tweets and articles of Priya. The Trial Court while acquitting her stated that she had raised voice against sexual assault and that is not punishable even if done after a decade. She can raise her voice in any platform and “right to reputation cannot be protected by violating the right to dignity of another”.