Karnataka raises age for tobacco purchase to 21
A government order notifying the changes was issued on Friday, after President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Karnataka-specific amendment to the central tobacco control law on May 23.
The revised law — The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 — was published in the Karnataka Gazette on May 30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator Tamil Selvan
Mumbai: Observing that the petition comprised vague and generic pleadings, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He won from the Sion-Koliwada constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Selvan petitioned the HC for the dismissal of the petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav, the Indian National Congress (INC) candidate who emerged with the second-highest votes. Yadav earlier this year filed the election petition and, through his counsel Premlal Krishnan, challenged Selvan's election on grounds of non-compliance with certain rules and provisions, including those governing valid nominations under Section 33 of the Representation of People (RP) Act. Justice Milind Jadhav, who pronounced the judgment on Tuesday, said, "It is, however, prima facie seen that the Election Petition comprises vague and generic pleadings and there is a complete absence of material facts." Krishnan argued that averments in the petition were enough to lay the foundation for the challenge. Justice Jadhav noted that Krishnan "fairly argued that though what Petitioner will prove in evidence is not specifically in so many words stated in the Election Petition … Petitioner should be allowed to prove the same in trial. " Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission. The allegations, including "non-disclosure" of an arbitration award in favour of the Railways, were of "vague violations" by Selvan with no specific details whatsoever, the HC said, adding, "Alleged omissions do not amount to non-compliance with provisions of Section 33 or Rule 4A so as to constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The HC said, "It is seen that on scrutiny, the Returning Officer has not found any ambiguity or mistake, much less, non-disclosure or falsehood which can be deemed as suppression. It is in this context that when the Election Petitioner approaches the Court, he has to make a concise material statement of facts with all details in the Petition itself at the threshold. The Petitioner cannot improve his case in further pleadings, which is the attempt of Petitioner before me. " Once Selvan's nomination was held to be valid, it is deemed accepted and can only be rejected at the time of scrutiny. When the Returning Officer on scrutiny endorses each nomination, the nomination is considered valid, the HC held. The HC agreed with Tulzapurkar's submissions seeking dismissal of the EP as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as mandated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Court dismisses plea against BJP MLA's victory in Mumbai's Sion-Koliwada seat
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against BJP legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan, challenging his victory from the 179 Sion-Koliwada Assembly constituency in Milind N Jadhav rejected the petition filed by Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav, terming it "vague and generic" and lacking the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, who secured 65,534 votes against Selvan's winning tally of 73,429, had sought to set aside the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. He alleged that Selvan suppressed key financial information in his nomination affidavit, including a Rs 90 lakh housing loan, an arbitral award of over Rs 2.72 crore in favour of Central Railways, and other liabilities flagged in CRIF and CIBIL reports. Representing Selvan, senior advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar argued that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by documentary evidence. He stated that the loan pertained to a flat purchased in Selvan's daughter's name and was serviced solely by her, eliminating the need for disclosure. On the arbitral award, Tulzapurkar noted that its execution had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore no enforceable liability further contended that the petitioner had failed to present crucial documents at the outset and had attempted to improve the case at a later stage, undermining the credibility of the counsel, Premlal Krishnan, maintained that the omissions were deliberate and materially affected the election outcome by depriving voters of complete information on Selvan's financial Justice Jadhav ruled that the petition failed to meet the statutory requirement under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, which mandates a clear and concise statement of material facts. 'Yadav has merely alleged general and vague violations by Selvan without specifying any details whatsoever,' the court decision aligns with Justice Jadhav's earlier criticism in March this year regarding poorly drafted election petitions, where he remarked on the declining standards in legal pleadings submitted in such that Yadav failed to comply with the mandatory legal provisions, the court dismissed the petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for invalidating an election.- EndsMust Watch
Deccan Herald
3 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
