Will not interfere in Madras High Court order against DMK membership drive, says Supreme Court
'The court has to protect the citizens. Go back to the High Court. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Dismissed,' a Bench, headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, said. The apex court did not budge even as senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the DMK, submitted that the party was not collecting Aadhaar details.
On July 21, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete of the Madras High Court had issued an interim injunction to the limited extent (of OTP messages) till the issue of right to privacy and data protection were examined in detail. The High Court reasoned that the fundamental rights of the people were at stake.
The High Court said that during the door-to-door membership drive, personal information, including mobile phone numbers, were obtained and OTP verification messages were sent to these. 'Data protection of the individuals is an essential element of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the absence of accountability and transparency in the data collected from individuals across the State, it is an issue which needs elaborate analysis,' the Bench had observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BJP accuses Rahul Gandhi of making ‘immature' comments against Armed Forces
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday stated that Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi's credibility is at stake, citing the Supreme Court's remarks during the hearing of a criminal defamation case related to his December 2022 comments on Indo-China border tensions. At a press conference, BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia said: 'Such immature, anti-Army, and demoralising statements made without any evidence or facts, especially when our Army was engaged in the Galwan incident, raise serious questions. Why does Rahul Gandhi make such statements? This is a big question. And it is a question about his credibility.' 'The question arises: Does India deserve a more responsible and better Leader of Opposition? As a Leader of the Opposition, who has taken an oath under the Constitution to safeguard the sovereignty of our country, is he destroying that very sovereignty? ...is he helping the nations which are inimical to our country? Is he demoralising the brave Indian armed forces?' the BJP leader asked. Quoting the Supreme Court's remarks, Mr. Bhatia alleged that this was not the first time Mr. Gandhi had displayed 'such an anti-India' mindset. He referred to another defamation case involving comments by the Congress leader about V.D. Savarkar. 'We all know that the commission-hungry Congress failed to procure Rafale jets for 10 years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi made sure that the Air Force received these aircraft. Displaying similar immaturity, Rahul Gandhi used inappropriate language for the Prime Minister. Subsequently, the Supreme Court's decision affirmed that the addition of Rafale jets strengthened the Air Force and was in India's national interest,' Mr. Bhatia added.
United News of India
24 minutes ago
- United News of India
'Fight political battles outside court, not here', CJI tells Karnataka minister
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal filed by Karnataka Minister Shivananda S. Patil, challenging a Karnataka High Court decision that had quashed his defamation case against BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal. Patil's counsel sought to contest the High Court's order dated September 28, 2024, which had set aside the proceedings, citing non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was alleged that Yatnal made defamatory remarks against Patil during a rally ahead of the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections, tarnishing his image despite his Cabinet status. At the outset, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, sitting with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, made his stance clear and said, 'Fight political battles outside the court, not here.' When the lawyer tried to press the appeal, the CJI responded curtly, 'So what?' and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000, which he later escalated to Rs 1 crore. However, the cost was waived after the lawyer requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Karnataka High Court had ruled that the magistrate failed to follow due process under Section 223 of the BNSS. According to the provision, a magistrate must first examine the complainant and any witnesses under oath and provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard before taking cognisance. The High Court found these steps were skipped, invalidating the trial process. With the apex court's dismissal, the High Court's decision stands, bringing the defamation case against Yatnal to a close. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Seeman restrained from making defamatory remarks on DIG
Chennai: Madras high court has restrained Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief coordinator, Seeman , from making defamatory statements against deputy inspector-general of police Varun Kumar. Justice K Kumaresh Babu issued the interim order on a civil suit filed by Varun Kumar against Seeman. Varun Kumar contended that Seeman began a personal tirade against him ever since he acted against an NTK member, 'Sattai' Duraimurugan. Duraimurugan was arrested by Tiruvallur district police for causing a law-and-order issue due to a false claim on his YouTube channel about the death of Foxconn factory workers from food poisoning. He was also detained under the Goondas Act, Varun Kumar said. At that time, he was serving as superintendent of police at Tiruvallur district. Following Duraimurugan's arrest, Seeman developed animosity towards him, the officer stated. He added that Seeman had been making disparaging remarks against him in the media since then. Seeman termed him a 'beggar' and sullied the image of the entire police force in the country by saying he was 'after all an IPS officer'. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai "The statements made by Seeman impact the performance of his official duties. The statements are baseless and without any substance," senior advocate P H Arvind Pandian said, representing the officer. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally Undo Advocate S Shankar, representing Seeman, sought time to file his response to the allegations. Recording the submissions, the judge said, "...a reading of the statements made by Seeman would prima facie conclude that they have been made in a derogatory and defamatory manner, which would affect the reputation of the officer holding a high office."Article 19(2) of the Constitution carves out a restriction to Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression), which protects the citizen from being defamed. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for, the judge said, and adjourned the hearing to Aug 6.
