Information Technology Act, 2000

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act in Child Pornography Cases: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish & Ors. (2024) INSC 716 (23 September 2024)

/ Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 67B, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 15, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 30

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of POCSO Act and IT Act in Child Pornography Cases Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2024 Citation: (2024) INSC 716 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, J. Can mere possession of child pornography be a crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying […]

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act in Child Pornography Cases: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish & Ors. (2024) INSC 716 (23 September 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail in blackmail case: Sabita Paul vs. State of West Bengal (2024) INSC 245 (22 March 2024)

/ Anticipatory Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 67A

Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail in blackmail case: Sabita Paul vs. State of West Bengal (2024) INSC 245 (22 March 2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a secondary accused when the primary accused has already been granted bail, and the secondary accused’s actions are inextricably linked to those of the primary

Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail in blackmail case: Sabita Paul vs. State of West Bengal (2024) INSC 245 (22 March 2024) Read Post »

Obscenity and Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against ‘College Romance’ Makers (2024)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 292, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 294, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 509, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 67, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 67A

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in ‘College Romance’ Web Series Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the use of expletives and profane language in a web series constitutes obscenity under the Information Technology Act, 2000. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Information Technology Case Name: Apoorva Arora & Anr. Etc. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Judgment

Obscenity and Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against ‘College Romance’ Makers (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Legislative Competence and Privilege in Summons to Facebook: Ajit Mohan & Ors. vs. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 194, Constitutional Law with Article 239AA, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 69A, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Legislative Powers vs. Digital Platforms: Supreme Court on Delhi Assembly’s Summons to Facebook (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: The scope of legislative privilege and the extent of legislative competence of the Delhi Legislative Assembly in summoning a representative of a social media platform. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Legislative Powers, and Fundamental Rights. Case Name: Ajit Mohan &

Supreme Court Addresses Legislative Competence and Privilege in Summons to Facebook: Ajit Mohan & Ors. vs. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295A, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 66F, Judges, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court on Hate Speech and Multiple FIRs: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the legal boundaries between free speech and hate speech, particularly in the context of media broadcasts, and the issue of multiple FIRs for the same incident. CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition Case Name: Amish Devgan

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020) Read Post »

Customs Duty on Goods from Pakistan: Supreme Court Interprets “Date” of Bill of Entry (23 September 2020)

/ Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 15, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 17, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 46, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section 8A, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 5(3), Indu Malhotra, Information Technology Act, 2000, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Clarifies Customs Duty Rate on Imports from Pakistan Post-Pulwama LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the applicable customs duty rate on imported goods based on the date of bill of entry presentation versus the date of notification of duty change. CASE TYPE: Customs Law, Import Duty Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. M/S

Customs Duty on Goods from Pakistan: Supreme Court Interprets “Date” of Bill of Entry (23 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of Electronic Records in Election Petitions: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

/ Admissibility of Electronic Records, Definitions, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 80, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 81, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Records: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) Date of the Judgment: 14th July, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 510 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can electronic records, such as video recordings, be admitted as evidence in court without a formal certificate? The

Supreme Court clarifies Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of Electronic Records in Election Petitions: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(o), Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(t), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of electronic evidence and the use of videography in crime scene investigations. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Evidence Law Case Name: Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Judgment Date: 30 January 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes Read Post »

Scroll to Top