Latest news with #LiveLaw
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Supreme Court calls crypto laws obsolete, urges govt to act on regulation
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that India's current laws are 'completely obsolete' when it comes to dealing with cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin. The top court noted that there is a 'grey area' in how these digital assets are regulated and asked the government to take steps to address the issue. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a case involving Gujarat-based businessman Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who is accused of Bitcoin-related fraud in multiple states, Live Law reported. Senior advocates Siddharth Dave and Mukul Rohatgi, representing Bhatt, reminded the court that it had earlier asked the Attorney General of India about a proper regulatory system for cryptocurrencies. 'When we were asking them that have some regulatory mechanism, a very, very sweeping statement was made – 'no, no, we are watching, we are looking at the international economic conditions'...' Justice Kant observed, as quoted by Live Law. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has highlighted the need for clear cryptocurrency laws. In earlier hearings, it compared unregulated Bitcoin trade to hawala transactions and warned that the lack of rules makes it easy for people to misuse the system. In November 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition asking for guidelines on trading and mining cryptocurrency. The SC bench had said, 'Parliament will do it, we will not issue any directions.' In January 2024, the top court gave the Union Government time to state its position on cryptocurrency issues, especially in cases happening across various states. In April 2025, another bench said that the matter falls under policy and not judicial decision-making, advising the petitioner to approach the proper authority. Govt to release discussion paper on crypto policy Meanwhile the Central government may release a discussion paper next month to explore policy options for crypto assets, according to a report by The Economic Times. This comes amid rising global acceptance of digital currencies, especially after former US President Donald Trump publicly voiced his support for them. According to the report, the paper will draw on insights from a study by the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board, and will also gather perspectives on how various countries are regulating cryptocurrencies. 'The discussion paper on crypto assets is being given finishing touches,' an official told The Economic Times. The paper could be posted for public comments as early as next month.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Hold NEET-PG exam in single shift instead of two: Supreme Court to NBE
According to a LiveLaw report, the court in its ruling said that conducting the exam in two shifts creates arbitrariness, adding that NBE should make arrangements to hold it in a single shift Swati Gandhi New Delhi The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday ordered the National Board of Examination (NBE) to conduct the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate (NEET-PG) 2025 exam in one shift, instead of two shifts. According to a LiveLaw report, the SC in its ruling said that conducting the exam in two shifts creates "arbitrariness", adding that NBE should make necessary arrangements to hold the exam in a single shift and to ensure transparency. The court in its order stated, "Holding examination in two shifts creates arbitrariness and also does not keep all the candidates at the same level. Any two question papers can ever be said to be of an identical level of difficulty or ease. There has to be a variation." The court rejected the argument made by NBE that there are not enough centres to hold the exam in a single shift. The apex court ruled, "The exam is to be held all over the country, not just in one city. We are not ready to accept that in the entire country, and considering the technological advancements in this country, the examining body could not find enough centres to hold the examination in one shift." When questioned why the exam for NEET-PG has to be conducted in two shifts, when the same is not the case for NEET-UG, which has more applicants, NBE stated, "The exam is held online. In 2024, NEET UG had to be cancelled due to malpractice. For the online exam, there are limited centres. All important examinations in which a large number of candidates appear are held like this." Petitioners' counsel argued in the court that the double-shift exam gives priority to "luck" over "merit". It further claimed that conducting the exam in two shifts violates the rights of the candidates under Article 14 of the Constitution. The plea also referred to the 2024 NEET-PG exam, which was conducted in two shifts and resulted in a case before the apex court.
Scroll.in
a day 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.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
'Unnatural sex against wife's will is cruelty, but…', rules Madhya Pradesh high court
The Madhya Pradesh high court has ruled that forcing unnatural sex on one's wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, amounts to an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, The Times of India reported on Friday. However, it clarified that the husband cannot be prosecuted under Sections 377 or 376, since 'marital rape' is not a punishable offence under current Indian law. The court upheld the FIR filed by a woman against her husband. The police had earlier charged the husband under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The husband challenged the FIR, arguing that unnatural sex with one's wife is not a crime under Indian law. He also claimed that Section 498A should not apply, as the complaint did not include any dowry-related allegations. Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Gwalior bench observed in his order that while unnatural sex with one's wife doesn't amount to an offence under IPC sections 376 or 377, it can still constitute cruelty if accompanied by violence and physical abuse. "Committing unnatural sex with a wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty." The TOI quoted the judge as saying. The order further explained that, "From a plain reading of IPC section 498A, it is clear that any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical, to the woman, would amount to cruelty." While the court quashed the charge under Section 377, it held that there was enough evidence to proceed under other provisions. 'However, since there are specific allegations that whenever the wife resisted the unnatural conduct of petitioner, she was assaulted and treated with physical cruelty, this court is of the opinion that offence under section 498A IPC is made out,' the court said. 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 stands,' it added. In a February ruling, the Chhattisgarh high court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex for engaging in sexual activity with his adult wife, regardless of her consent, Live Law reported. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over a single-judge bench, stated that the wife's consent is irrelevant in such cases of sexual or unnatural intercourse within marriage. The case involved an incident from December 11, 2017, in which a man allegedly forced his wife into unnatural sex against her will. Following the act, the woman was hospitalised and later died. In her dying declaration, she accused her husband of forceful sexual intercourse. Doctors later found that she died due to peritonitis and rectal perforation. Despite this, the court noted that under Indian law, sexual acts with a wife who is not under 15 years of age do not qualify as rape. As a result, it ruled that unnatural sex in marriage cannot be treated as a criminal offence. The husband, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison by a trial court, was ultimately acquitted of all charges.
Scroll.in
3 days ago
- Scroll.in
Chennai court convicts man in Anna University sexual assault case
A Chennai court on Wednesday convicted a man for the sexual assault of a student on the campus of Anna University, Live Law reported. Judge M Rajalakshmi of the Chennai Mahila court found the man, Gnanasekaran, guilty on all 11 charges filed against him, The News Minute reported. He was convicted under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to rape and sexual harassment. The court will deliver the sentence on June 2. Gnanasekaran has requested leniency from the court on his sentencing, citing his responsibilities toward his mother and daughter, according to Live Law . On December 23, Gnanasekaran had allegedly filmed the student and her partner on the university campus and threatened to leak the footage to the dean and the couple's parents if they did not comply with his demands. Gnanasekaran then allegedly took the complainant to a remote location where he first blackmailed her before sexually assaulting her. The first information report filed in the case stated that the accused had illegally detained the student for 40 minutes. Before fleeing the scene, Gnanasekaran also demanded the complainant's phone number and said that she should meet him whenever he called. Gnanasekaran, who ran a roadside eatery near the campus, was arrested by the Greater Chennai Police two days after the incident. The police had said that at least seven other cases were pending against him. The case had also sparked a controversy after the FIR based on the complaint was leaked online, revealing the identity of the student. Stating that this had caused the student 'trauma and humiliation', the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government on December 28 to provide Rs 25 lakh in compensation to her. The bench also called it a serious failure on the part of the police. In addition, the High Court had constituted an all-woman Special Investigation Team to probe the case. The team filed a chargesheet with the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Saidapet on February 25, The News Minute reported. The case was later moved to the Mahila court in Allikulam. The High Court had also expressed shock over the language used in the FIR, stating that it amounted to victim-shaming, and directed the Tamil Nadu Police to conduct a departmental inquiry into the leak. However, the Supreme Court in January stayed the High Court order on the inquiry. Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, had attributed the leak to a technical glitch.
