Latest news with #BarandBench
Mint
a day ago
- Politics
- Mint
Karnataka HC says police can't unnecessarily collect call detail records, it ‘violates right to privacy'
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a person's call detail records (CDRs) are private. It said police can't "unnecessarily" collect such information when there is no ongoing official investigation that requires it. According to Bar and Bench, the judge said that if police are allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of a lawful investigation, it would lead to a police state. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while refusing to quash a criminal case filed against Sub-Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police Station Vidya VM. It was alleged that she had illegally collected the CDRs of a woman. The Karnataka High Court held that call detail records of an individual are personal and private details and that unnecessarily collecting such details would violate the right to privacy. "If police are allowed to obtain CDRs that are not part of a lawful investigation, it would lead to a police state," the judge was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying during the hearing. "The power to obtain the CDR of any individual should only be exercised during a lawful investigation by the investigating officer," the court said before dismissing the police officer's plea. As per the report, Vidya VM and some other co-accused persons, face a criminal case under Sections 354(D) (stalking), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture, act intended to insult modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, apart from Sections 66(D) (cheating by personation using computer resource) and 66(E) (privacy violation) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Vidya VM was reportedly accused of illegally obtaining the call detail records of a woman. The woman claimed that police officials illegally accessed her CDRs and shared them with others against whom she had filed another criminal case. The woman alleged that these CDRs were misused by the co-accused, who were troubling her. The woman had then filed a private complaint against Vidya and others. In December 2024, a trial court summoned Vidya and others accused in the case. Vidya eventually approached the high court to quash the case against her. Vidya's counsel, Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke, argued that the police officer had sought the CDRs in the discharge of her official duties. However, the court declined to grant any relief, observing that unnecessarily acquiring the CDRs of a person would violate the right to privacy, as laid down in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Puttaswamy case.
Scroll.in
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Allahabad HC dismisses Rahul Gandhi's plea against summons for remark about Army
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging the summons issued by a Lucknow court in a defamation case related to his remarks about the Indian Army in 2022, Bar and Bench reported. The leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha had challenged the summons issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma in February and the complaint filed against him on the grounds that it was motivated and lodged in a mala fide manner, The Times of India reported. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on Thursday rejected the plea on merits, according to Bar and Bench. The detailed order of the judgement will be released on June 2, the Hindustan Times reported. Gandhi made the comments on December 16, 2022, about a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies along the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh's Tawang. The two sides had confronted each other with melee weapons on December 9, 2022, leading to injuries in both sides. Gandhi's remarks about the violence were made during the Congress' Bharat Jodo Yatra, a march from Kanyakumari to Kashmir against the allegedly divisive policies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. A former director of the Border Roads Organisation, Uday Shankar Srivastava, filed a defamation complaint against Gandhi. His lawyer claimed that the Congress leader's statements were derogatory and defamed the Indian Army.
Scroll.in
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC tells journalist to remove YouTube video containing allegations about judge
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered journalist and YouTuber Ajay Shukla to remove a video in which he made 'scandalous allegations' about a retired judge, Bar and Bench reported. A bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai initiated contempt proceedings on its own motion against Shukla, the editor-in-chief of Varprad Media, and issued a notice to him. While the court did not explicitly name the judge about whom the allegations were made, Shukla had on May 18 uploaded a video on his YouTube channel 'The Principle' about the retirement of Justice Bela M Trivedi, describing her as a 'godi judge', or a pro-government judge. While Trivedi is officially slated to retire on June 9, her last working day was May 16. The term 'godi judge' is similar to 'godi media', or lapdog media – a phrase popularised by journalist Ravish Kumar to describe pro-Bharatiya Janata Party media outlets. The bench on Friday said that 'such scandalous allegations widely published are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary' and remarked that the freedom of expression is subject to 'reasonable restrictions'. 'A person cannot be permitted to make allegations which are in the nature of defaming a judge of this Court and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the institution of the judiciary,' the court said, according to Live Law.
Scroll.in
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Karnataka HC tells BJP MLC to apologise for saying deputy commissioner ‘may have come from Pakistan'
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed Bharatiya Janata Party MLC N Ravi Kumar to tender a personal apology to Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner Fouzia Taranum for saying that she 'may have come from Pakistan', Bar and Bench reported. Taranum is a 2015 cadre Indian Administrative Service officer. Justice Suraj Govindaraj verbally directed Kumar to apologise to Taranum for his statements and postponed the hearing on his petition challenging the first information report against him to June 6, The Hindu reported. 'Make your apologies to the lady in question, make her accept the apology, place it on record, we will consider then,' Bar and Bench quoted Govindaraj as having said. The court also said that Kumar should have learned from the recent criticism faced by BJP leader Vijay Shah for his communal remarks purportedly targeting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. Shah had on May 13 said that those who had widowed the daughters of India were taught a lesson by Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'by sending the sister from their own community'. The BJP leader repeated the remark immediately after saying it the first time. While he did not name a person, Opposition parties had alleged that the minister was alluding to Qureshi, one of the official spokespersons during the foreign ministry and defence ministry's media briefings relating to Operation Sindoor. In the current matter, Kumar, who is the the chief whip of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, made the comment about Taranum on May 24 at a rally organised by the Hindutva Party in Kalaburagi against the alleged mistreatment of BJP MLC Chalavadi Narayanaswamy in Chittapur. On May 21, Congress workers had reportedly blockaded a government guest house and did not allow Narayanaswamy to come out. This came after he allegedly likened Priyank Kharge, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge's son and Karnataka minister, to a 'dog'. Speaking at a rally on May 24, Kumar had claimed that the deputy commissioner's office in Kalaburagi had lost its independence. Taranum only listened to what the Congress said, he alleged. 'I do not know whether she comes from Pakistan or is an IAS officer here,' The Indian Express quoted Kumar as having said. 'Listening to your applause, I think she might have come from Pakistan.' On Monday, the Karnataka Police filed a first information report against Kumar for his statements. The BJP MLC was booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to assertions prejudicial to national integration, threat of injury to a public servant, acts intended to outrage religious feelings, uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings, criminal intimidation and statements that could lead to public mischief. At the hearing on Thursday, Kumar's lawyer told the court that he had already apologised for his remarks and requested interim protection from arrest. The counsel for the state government, on the other hand, assured the court that Kumar would not be arrested if he cooperated with the investigation, Bar and Bench reported. The court instructed the state government to provide relevant video footage of the incident and directed Kumar's lawyer to submit an affidavit formally recording his apology.
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
YouTuber Mohak Mangal agrees to remove ‘objectionable' parts of video about ANI
YouTuber Mohak Mangal on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that he will remove the allegedly objectionable portions in his video about Asian News International, Bar and Bench reported. His submission came after Justice Amit Bansal directed Mangal to take down the portions, observing that they contained defamatory language about the news agency. The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by ANI against Mangal for posting the allegedly defamatory video accusing the news agency of extortion and blackmail. The suit also listed comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, among others, as defendants for sharing Mangal's video on social media. In his order, Bansal said that Mangal had agreed to put the video 'in private mode and make the necessary amendments in the video so as to remove objectionable portions as indicated in the hearing'. It added that the video may be uploaded again after the allegedly objectionable content was removed. Earlier on Thursday, the court had said that the YouTuber should have put out his message in a more civilised manner and asked Mangal's counsel to seek instructions on taking down the video. In his video titled ' Dear ANI ' uploaded on Sunday, Mangal accused ANI of extortion and blackmail after the news agency initiated copyright strikes against his YouTube channel for using its footage in his material. A copyright strike on YouTube takes place when the copyright owner claims that a video has used their content without permission. YouTube reviews the claim and, if valid, stops the creator from monetising it or removes the video. It also gives the uploader of the video a strike. Receiving three strikes can lead to a channel's termination. Mangal contended in his video that he had used the footage under the 'fair use' principle, which is legal doctrine that is generally understood to allow limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the owner for purposes such as critiques, reviews or teaching. Mangal's video had 5.8 million views as of Thursday. During the hearing on Thursday, advocate Amit Sibal, representing ANI, told the court that there had been unlawful publication of the news agency's copyrighted content on YouTube, according to Bar and Bench. Sibal added: 'I [ANI] offered a license. They could have rejected my offer but to put pressure on me, defamatory material is put by them. This is in retaliation to my offer.' The advocate alleged that Mangal had started a media campaign against ANI that had spiralled into a 'concerted campaign'. This was vilifying and defamatory, he alleged. 'They are calling me thugs, extortionist, gunda [goon], other expletives,' Bar and Bench quoted Sibal as having said. The judge was also told that Mangal was earning money by not only using ANI's videos but also posting the allegedly defamatory material. 'He has 4.2 million subscribers, he is using my content to earn money, they attract eyeballs,' Bar and Bench quoted Sibal as having argued. 'He puts my registered trademark. I have placed transcription of a fake conversation with me, he states in minute letters that it is a recreation.' The advocate also alleged that the social media posts by Kamra and Zubair appeared to be a 'concerted effort' against ANI, adding that their attempt was 'to put pressure' on the news agency. There were also calls to boycott ANI, he added. Advocate Chander Lall, representing Mangal, accused ANI of not following due process. 'If they have a grievance against me, they can't call me and extort money from me that I will block your channel if you don't pay,' Bar and Bench quoted Lall as having said. Advocate Nakul Gandhi, also representing Mangal, said that the YouTuber's channel would be terminated after three strikes and that he would not be able to open a new channel, Live Law reported. In response, Live Law quoted Bansal as saying: 'Your act and your video was premature.' 'Because there was no threat to your channel,' the judge said. 'The onus of them to go to court. There was no occasion to make the disparaging video.' Zubair also agreed to take down his social media posts about the matter, Bar and Bench reported. His counsel noted that the AltNews co-founder had made a civilised comment on the larger matter. However, he was willing to delete his remarks, the counsel added. Kamra had initially agreed to only delete one of his several posts about the matter. His counsel argued that other posts were covered under the right to free speech. The comedian was commenting on a matter of larger public interest, the counsel added. Bansal, however, said that the language was not palatable to the court, according to Bar and Bench. Kamra agreed to delete the posts. ANI's suit In its suit, ANI claimed that the video was an attempt to 'discredit and insult' the news agency and the services it provides under its registered trademarks. Mangal had admitted to using ANI's original copyrighted videos to earn revenue, the news agency was quoted as having claimed in its suit, adding that the YouTuber had published the video filled with defamatory and damaging statements despite this. The suit also alleged that Kamra, Zubair and others who had shared Mangal's video on their social media accounts had 'independently published further false, baseless and malicious statements targeting the plaintiff and its founders'. ANI alleged that the statements were 'devoid of any factual or legal foundation' and were intended to 'malign' the reputation of the news agency in the eyes of the public. The suit sought Rs 2.1 crore as damages. In addition, it also sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against Mangal, including directions to take down the video, stop using ANI's trademarks and refrain from publishing or circulating further 'false, misleading or defamatory' content against the news agency. It also sought similar restraining orders against Kamra, Zubair and others, preventing them from making or sharing defamatory and false statements about ANI.
