Latest news with #Article19
Al Jazeera
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
What are the implications of the UK ban on Palestine Action?
The group has been classified as a 'terror organisation' by the UK government. There have been demonstrations against the United Kingdom's ban on the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action and its designation as a 'terrorist group'. The government actions came after members of the group broke into an airbase and vandalised military aircraft. Critics say the ban is excessive and an attack on freedom of speech. So what are the implications? Presenter: James Bays Guests: Tayab Ali – deputy managing partner at Bindmans law firm Quinn McKew – executive director at Article 19 Peter Oborne – political commentator
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-07-2025
- Business Standard
Centre suggests six cuts in 'Udaipur Files', SC extends stay on release
The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it has suggested six cuts in the movie "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". "In personal opinion any further action than what has been recommended by the competent authority will be infringing Article 19. I have gone through the order," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The top court asked Mehta to place the order on record. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhati, appearing for filmmakers, submitted the Centre was exercising its revisionary jurisdiction and recommended six cuts in film scenes and they have been complied with. Justice Kant told Bhatia that film producers would have to comply with the directions of cutting the scenes, unless they wished to challenge the order. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for accused Mohd Javed, seeking the stay on the movie's release, said the interim stay should continue till the apex court decided the issue. The bench went ahead to continue the stay till further orders and posted the hearing on July 24. On July 16, the top court asked the filmmakers to await the decision of the Centre-appointed panel to hear objections against the movie. The top court told the filmmakers while the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal tailor murder case couldn't be compensated for the loss of reputation if the film releases, the filmmakers could be compensated in monetary terms. The high court on July 10 stayed the film's release on a plea of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, invoking powers of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, till the representation is decided by the Central Government, for which the high court granted one week time. The top court had asked the Centre's panel to take a decision immediately without loss of time after hearing all the parties and ordered to give a hearing to the accused in the murder case. The top court also directed the superintendent of police of the jurisdiction concerned to assess the threat perception and take necessary action in providing life and property of family members of filmmakers and the son of a tailor, who were reportedly receiving threats. The filmmakers claimed of having received a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate with the board suggesting 55 cuts and the film was due to be released on July 11. The top court said despite the film receiving the CBFC certificate, the Centre had the power to suggest further cuts in scenes or even stop the film from screening and one should await the decision of the competent authority. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Centre suggests six cuts in movie 'Udaipur Files', Supreme Court continues stay its release
The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it has suggested six cuts in the movie "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". "In personal opinion any further action than what has been recommended by the competent authority will be infringing Article 19. I have gone through the order," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Healthcare healthcare CXO Degree Digital Marketing Data Analytics Operations Management MCA Others Leadership Technology Data Science Design Thinking Management Cybersecurity Finance Artificial Intelligence Project Management PGDM Product Management MBA Data Science others Public Policy Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis in Healthcare Financial Management & Investing Strategic Management in Healthcare Process Design & Analysis Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Program in Healthcare Management Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details The top court asked Mehta to place the order on record. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Undo Senior advocate Gaurav Bhati, appearing for filmmakers, submitted the Centre was exercising its revisionary jurisdiction and recommended six cuts in film scenes and they have been complied with. Justice Kant told Bhatia that film producers would have to comply with the directions of cutting the scenes, unless they wished to challenge the order. Live Events Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for accused Mohd Javed, seeking the stay on the movie's release, said the interim stay should continue till the apex court decided the issue. The bench went ahead to continue the stay till further orders and posted the hearing on July 24. On July 16, the top court asked the filmmakers to await the decision of the Centre-appointed panel to hear objections against the movie. The top court told the filmmakers while the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal tailor murder case couldn't be compensated for the loss of reputation if the film releases, the filmmakers could be compensated in monetary terms. The high court on July 10 stayed the film's release on a plea of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, invoking powers of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, till the representation is decided by the Central Government, for which the high court granted one week time. The top court had asked the Centre's panel to take a decision immediately without loss of time after hearing all the parties and ordered to give a hearing to the accused in the murder case. The top court also directed the superintendent of police of the jurisdiction concerned to assess the threat perception and take necessary action in providing life and property of family members of filmmakers and the son of a tailor, who were reportedly receiving threats. The filmmakers claimed of having received a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate with the board suggesting 55 cuts and the film was due to be released on July 11. The top court said despite the film receiving the CBFC certificate, the Centre had the power to suggest further cuts in scenes or even stop the film from screening and one should await the decision of the competent authority. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
New Indian Express
19-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Orissa High Court upholds right to protest, quashes Rayagada DM's order
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Friday quashed a controversial order issued by the Rayagada collector that barred Bhawanipatna-based doctor Randall Sequeira from entering the district. The June 4 order, which also applied to noted activist Medha Patkar and 22 others, was imposed ahead of a planned protest against proposed bauxite mining at the Sijimali hills. Delivering the verdict, Justice SK Panigrahi held that blanket bans on protest activities are contrary to constitutional values. 'In a constitutional democracy, the government should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion,' the court said, emphasising that reasonable regulation and not prohibition is the appropriate response to concerns over law and order. The court took note of the context in which the ban was issued - during the Rath Yatra festivities, when police resources were stretched thin. However, it stated that those constraints were temporary and it was no longer justifiable to continue the restrictions. Dr Sequeira, who has provided free healthcare services to tribal communities in Rayagada and Kalahandi for several years, had challenged the ban as unconstitutional. His counsel, Advocate Afraaz Suhail, argued that the order disrupted essential services and violated his client's fundamental rights. While lifting the restriction on Dr Sequeira, the court laid down operational guidelines for future protests. These include prior notification to authorities, cooperation from organisers, state facilitation of venue and time, and proportionate restrictions to maintain public order. This apart, protesters must ensure peaceful conduct and authorities must avoid arbitrary denial of protest rights. The court stressed that these guidelines are case-specific and do not dilute broader constitutional protections under Article 19. Violations by protesters or unjustified restrictions by authorities will both be subject to legal scrutiny, it said. Dr Sequeira is now free to enter Rayagada district and resume his work. The status of the ban on other activists, including Medha Patkar and Prafulla Samantara, remains unclear as of the judgment by Justice Panigrahi on Friday.
Hans India
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Social media monitors us constantly, need to regulate: Centre tells HC
Bengaluru: There was an urgent need for regulation in the digital space, due to the constant surveillance by social media, rising cybercrime, and the evolving threat landscape, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on the X Corp (formerly Twitter) case over content takedown directives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that internet intermediaries like 'X' must act responsibly and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals. The hearing, before Justice N Nagaprasanna, pertained to X Corp's challenge to the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. It had earlier contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, often used to justify takedown directives, cannot serve as an independent source of executive power to block content. It said that blocking orders can only be issued through due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules and not via direct instructions under Section 79. Highlighting the extent of digital surveillance, Mehta told the court: 'Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders. We are being continuously monitored by social media,' he said. The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence, calling it a developmental boon but also a potential noted that legal frameworks must evolve to address the threats posed by technological advances. Dismissing X Corp's claim that it enjoys rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta asserted that such protections are reserved for individuals, not platforms. 'X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections,' he said, adding that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India had clarified that content on public platforms can be regulated in public interest. The case will be heard again on July 18.
