Online betting case: SC issues notice to Centre, says ‘misconception that it can be stopped through law'
Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh of the Supreme Court heard the plea filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul against online betting on Friday. The plea contended that betting on the apps amounts to 'gambling'.
Presenting his case, KA Paul had told the court, "I am here on behalf of millions of parents whose children died...1023 people committed suicides in Telangana...25 Bollywood and Tollywood actors/influencers playing with lives of innocents..…
'FIRs has been filed. Out of 900 million, 30 crore are being trapped illegally...[this is] violation of Article 21 rights,' KA Paul was quoted by Live Law as saying.
According to Bar and Bench, yhe petitioner also told the court that in case of cigarettes 'there is publicity [about them being injurious but not case of betting.]'
As KA Paul raised the matter in the court, Justice Kant noted that people "are voluntarily doing these things." He said the court supports that online betting should be stopped but there's a 'misconception that it can be stopped through a law.'
"This issue has been dealt with by this Court…What can be done? Principally we are with you, it should be stopped...but probably you are under a misconception that it can be stopped through a law. Just like we can't stop people from committing murder, despite law," Justice Kant was quoted by Live Law as saying.
When KA Paul said, "God of cricketer is endorsing [online betting]," Justice Kant said that "cricketer" knows that "in the name of watching IPL, there are thousands of betting."
The judge said the court "will ask Union what it's doing."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders removal of all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets within 8 weeks
The Supreme Court on Monday directed that all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) be rounded up within eight weeks and housed in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities, making it clear that no captured animal will be released back on the streets. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition registered on its own motion on the 'alarming and disturbing' rise in stray dog attacks. (HT PHOTO) A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, hearing a petition registered on its own motion on the 'alarming and disturbing' rise in stray dog attacks, ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. It directed that authorities in Delhi-NCR must set up a helpline so all dog bite complaints can be registered, with the offending animal picked up 'within four hours' of a complaint. 'Round up all stray dogs from all localities, including localities on the outskirts of Delhi, and shift them to some other place…Whether sterilised or not sterilised, the society must feel free and safe. You should not have any stray dogs roaming around,' the bench said. The court criticised the practice under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that mandates the release of sterilised dogs back into the same locality. 'We have noticed some unreasonable and absurd rules that you pick one dog, sterilise them, and bring them back to the same place. We fail to understand why you bring them back,' the bench said. 'Forget the rules and face reality. These dogs are to be rounded up and captured immediately by whatever means. That's how you can make children and senior citizens feel safe.' The court was hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who welcomed the court's intervention, and senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, appointed amicus curiae to assist the bench, who suggested that the ABC rule mandating release back into the same area 'must go' since 'there is no evidence that sterilisation stops dog bites or eliminates the threat of rabies.' When senior advocate Sidharth Luthra sought to intervene on behalf of animal rights activist Gauri Maulekhi, the court refused. 'All intervention applications are rejected. In the larger interest of people and the grim situation prevailing that has put the safety and lives of children, senior citizens, and everyone else in peril, we will not entertain any intervention application.' It stressed that its action was not motivated by public sentiment but by urgent safety concerns. 'No sentiments of any nature should influence this matter. The actions have to be taken at the earliest… Will animal rights activists be able to bring back the lives lost? The children who have fallen prey to dog bites? It is now the time to act and save them.' The bench issued a series of binding directions to authorities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, and Gurugram. 'The Delhi government, MCD, NDMC, and authorities in Noida, Ghaziabad, and Gurugram will start picking stray dogs from all localities, particularly vulnerable localities, and areas on the outskirts. How to do it is for them, and if they have to create a force, they should do that. The first step is to make localities free of stray dogs. There cannot be a compromise in this.' It added that the Government of NCT of Delhi, MCD, NDMC, and appropriate authorities in Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram are directed to create dog shelters within eight weeks for 5,000 dogs.' These shelters must have personnel to sterilise and immunise the animals and 'look after these dogs who will not be released back.' CCTV monitoring will ensure compliance, said the bench, emphasising that no dog should be released back in the street or public spaces. 'We direct the authorities to create a helpline so that all complaints of dog bites are immediately registered. Action of picking up dogs must be taken within four hours of a complaint of dog bite being lodged. Any act of creating an impediment shall be viewed as contempt of this court. Such dogs shall not be released under any circumstances. They shall be sterilised and immunised as per the applicable rules,' said the bench. It ordered that the Delhi government will publicise the availability and location of authentic rabies vaccines, noting the concern expressed by Agrawal regarding current shortage. The bench reiterated that any hindrance or obstruction caused by individuals or organisations will be treated as contempt. 'We are doing this in the larger public interest. Infants and children must not fall prey to dog bites and rabies…Actions should inspire in the minds of young and old alike that they can move freely without the fear of dog bites.' The directions follow the court's suo motu cognisance on July 28 after media reports on the death of six-year-old Chavi Sharma from rabies in Delhi's Pooth Kalan area. She was bitten on June 30 by a rabid dog and succumbed on July 26 despite treatment. On that day, the court called the situation 'extremely troubling' and noted 'reports of hundreds of dog bite incidents' in both urban and peripheral areas. The court had then directed that the matter be registered as a suo motu writ petition, setting the stage for Monday's sweeping orders. The matter will be heard again after six weeks for a compliance report.
The Hindu
5 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in criminal defamation case by Delhi L-G Saxena
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) confirmed a Delhi High Court decision upholding the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant General of Delhi, in 2001. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh however set aside an order directing Ms. Patkar, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh and advocate Abhimanue Shreshta, to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation. The apex court also modified a probation order imposed on her and directed her to furnish bonds in order to exempt her from prison sentence. The Bench removed conditions of supervision of Ms. Patkar. 'Once the appellate court (High Court) applied the parameters of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code to grant probation, it could not have applied provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, much less the requirement for supervision by the Probation Officer under Section 4 (3) or the grant of compensation. The only permissible condition under Section 360 was to release the petitioner (Patkar), with or without surety, and no other condition was legally tenable,' Mr. Parikh argued. Ms. Patkar was alleged to have emailed a press note on November 24, 2000 allegedly to Dilip Gohil, a correspondent. The latter had published an article in Gujarati which Mr. Saxena claimed to be defamatory to him. Mr. Parikh argued for setting aside the conviction, noting that the High Court had upheld the conviction despite disbelieving two crucial witnesses. The email, projected as key proof, was not certified as admissible as evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the apex court stood firm by its decision to not intervene in the conviction. The High Court had upheld the conviction of Ms. Patkar on July 29. Mr. Saxena had been heading the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties at the time of the defamation complaint.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Medha Patkar defamation case: SC confirm activist's conviction in defamation case by VK Saxena; sets aside Rs 1 lakh penalty
Medha Patkar (File photo) NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed activist Medha Patkar's conviction in a defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena. The top court set aside a penalty of Rs 1 lakh imposed on Medha Patkar in the case. On April 23 this year, a Delhi court issued a non-bailable warrant against activist Medha Patkar, observing that she was deliberately flouting its sentencing order to submit probation bonds and Rs 1 lakh as fine in Saxena's 2001 defamation case. Additional sessions judge Vishal Singh observed that instead of appearing before the court to comply with the sentencing of April 8, the 70-year-old social activist had remained absent and deliberately failed to comply with the order to avail of the benefit of probation subject to furnishing the compensation amount. "The intention of the convict is apparent. She is deliberately violating the court order; she is avoiding appearing before the court and also avoiding accepting the terms of the sentence passed against her," the judge said on Wednesday. On April 8, the sessions court had released Patkar on "probation for good conduct" in the defamation case against Saxena, who headed an NGO in Gujarat in 2001. The sessions court modified the order of a magisterial court on July 1, 2024, sentencing her to five months of simple imprisonment. It asked her to deposit compensation of Rs 1 lakh, which was to be released to Saxena. Two days later, on April 25, Delhi Police arrested Patkar. However, the Delhi high court, the same afternoon, deferred till May 20 the sentence of Patkar. In July, the Delhi high court upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to activist Medha Patkar and noted that the trial court order, against which Patkar approached the high court, did not require any interference as the challenge was "more in the nature of hair-splitting and hinged on technicalities." The high court pointed out that in the appeal, Patkar did not even refer to the text and context of the defamatory press note that had triggered the defamation suit as it alleged Saxena was "mortgaging" the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests, prompting the trial court to declare it a direct attack on his integrity and public service. "The record suggests that the essential ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are clearly made out. The imputations made were specific, published in the public domain, and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent," the high court noted in its order, saying it found no illegality in the conclusions reached by the trial court.
