sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu
Menu

Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime Supreme Court Hears Indian Express and Times of India Petitions Against Gujarat HC Over Apology for Misreporting Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking SIT Probe Into Murshidabad Communal Violence Over Waqf Amendment Act Supreme Court Judge BV Nagarathna Highlights Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality at Book Launch Delhi Court Shocked as Convict Threatens Female Judge After Cheque Bounce Conviction; NCW Action Ordered Allahabad High Court Sentences Lawyer Ashok Pandey to Six Months Jail for Contempt of Court Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Wildlife Conservation Laws in India: Legal Framework, Importance & Key Acts “Drone Usage in India: Laws, Regulations, and the Future of UAV Technology” Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime MAHI SINHA 22 Apr 2025 Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Ruling   The PIL Against OTT Platforms A PIL was submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the unchecked broadcasting of explicit content on OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Altt Balaji. The petitioners argued that these platforms often feature material that could be considered obscene and inappropriate for viewers of all age groups. However, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih rejected the plea, stating that it was a policy matter that fell under the jurisdiction of the Union Government of India rather than the judiciary. Court’s Perspective on OTT Content Regulation Justice Gavai expressed concerns over the Court’s involvement in policy matters, pointing out that regulating OTT platforms is not within the judiciary’s purview. He emphasized that the Union government should take the lead in framing regulations to address the issue of inappropriate content on these platforms. Justice Gavai noted, “It is for the Union to frame regulations, not for us.” Petitioner’s Argument and Court’s Dismissal Despite the Court’s reluctance to intervene, the petitioner’s lawyer, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that the issue was serious enough to warrant judicial attention. However, Justice Gavai remained firm, indicating that the case would likely be dismissed after a hearing. Previous Cases on OTT Content Regulation   April 2024: A Similar PIL on Offensive Material In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India had heard another PIL that challenged the posting of offensive material on OTT platforms. This case focused on whether platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video should be allowed unrestricted access to explicit content. The Court recommended that the government of India be consulted before any further action was taken. As a result, the petition was withdrawn, and the petitioners were encouraged to approach the Union government for a resolution. October 2024: Court Rejects Another Petition on OTT Regulation In October 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a second petition that sought the creation of an independent body to regulate OTT content. The petitioners argued that there were no existing laws governing the publishing of movies on OTT platforms or monitoring of their content. The Court remarked that such matters fell under the realm of public policy and were beyond the scope of judicial authority. The Growing Debate on OTT Content Regulation in India   Is Government Regulation the Solution? The ongoing discussions about regulating OTT content highlight the need for a balanced approach. While some believe in the importance of government regulations to protect viewers from explicit content, others argue that the autonomy of digital platforms should be preserved. The question remains: Should OTT platforms be censored, or should they maintain editorial freedom while implementing age-based content filters? The Role of Content Creators and OTT Platforms With the increasing demand for diverse and bold content, OTT platforms have become a major player in the entertainment industry. As content creators continue to push boundaries, it is essential for platforms to strike a balance between creativity and responsibility. Clear guidelines and self-regulation could potentially be the key to maintaining this balance without stifling the industry’s growth. What’s Next for OTT Content Regulation? As the Supreme Court of India has made clear, the regulation of OTT platforms is primarily a policy issue that requires input from the government of India. While the Court has dismissed multiple PILs on the subject, the conversation surrounding content regulation is far from over. Industry stakeholders, legal experts, and government officials will likely continue to debate the best path forward in the coming months. What Can We Expect? Government Action: The Union government may soon propose new regulations that address the concerns of OTT content, particularly related to explicit and inappropriate material. Industry Involvement: OTT platforms may come together to develop self-regulatory guidelines to avoid further legal challenges. Public Awareness: As the debate continues, public awareness regarding content guidelines and viewer rights will play a crucial role in shaping future decisions. Conclusion The recent Supreme Court ruling on OTT content regulation highlights the complex legal and policy issues surrounding digital media. While the Court has chosen not to intervene directly, the matter remains a hot topic of discussion. As the government of India works on developing regulations, it will be interesting to see how the industry responds to the growing demand for content censorship and control. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime Sadalaw Publications • April 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Hears Indian Express and Times of India Petitions Against Gujarat HC Over Apology for Misreporting Supreme Court Hears Indian Express and Times of India Petitions Against Gujarat HC Over Apology for Misreporting Sadalaw Publications • April 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking SIT

Supreme Court Rebuffs PIL Challenging Obscene Content on OTT Platforms Like Netflix and Amazon Prime Read More »

Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Wildlife Conservation Laws in India: Legal Framework, Importance & Key Acts “Drone Usage in India: Laws, Regulations, and the Future of UAV Technology” RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 Supreme Court Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay MAHI SINHA 19 Apr 2025 Introduction In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in the controversial demolition of the Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah in Nashik, Maharashtra. The court questioned the Bombay High Court regarding allegations that a plea filed to prevent the demolition was not given urgent consideration, raising serious concerns about judicial response and due process. Background of the Case Case Title: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Another On April 1, 2025, the Nashik Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice to the historic dargah. In response, the dargah administration promptly filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on April 7. However, their urgent request for case listing was allegedly denied on April 9, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court. Supreme Court’s Response and Interim Relief On April 16, the matter was heard by Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench expressed surprise at the apparent delay in listing the plea, especially considering the religious and cultural importance of the structure in question. “We can’t comprehend what happened between April 9 and now,” the bench noted, emphasizing the urgency due to the impending demolition of a holy site. Citing the seriousness of the claim—that the High Court failed to list the matter despite repeated requests—the Supreme Court issued an interim stay order, temporarily halting the demolition. Supreme Court Seeks Accountability The bench highlighted the gravity of the petitioner’s claims and insisted that the senior counsel take responsibility for the statements made: “This is a significant statement. The learned counsel will accept responsibility for the fallout.” The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has now been directed to submit a detailed report on the status of the plea’s listing. The matter will be heard again on April 21, 2025. Demolition Already Executed? Adding to the controversy, several media reports claim that the dargah was demolished just hours before the Supreme Court issued its stay order. If confirmed, this may lead to further judicial scrutiny and potential consequences for the municipal authorities. The petitioner is being represented by Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and Advocate-on-Record Jasmeet Singh (currently no Wikipedia pages available). Conclusion The Supreme Court’s proactive stance in questioning procedural lapses and issuing an interim stay underlines the importance of judicial transparency, religious freedom, and due process. With a final hearing scheduled, all eyes will be on the upcoming developments in this sensitive legal battle. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Sadalaw Publications • April 18, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Sadalaw Publications • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Sadalaw Publications • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Read More »

Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments Bombay High Court Overturns 36-Year-Old Pollution Conviction Against Gujarat Petro Chem Executives Allahabad High Court Sparks Outrage by Granting Bail in Rape Case, Blaming Victim for Her Actions Supreme Court Orders AIIMS to Reassess MBBS Eligibility of PwBD Candidate Based on Om Rathod and Anmol Rulings Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Requiring Title Proof for Property Registration Delhi High Court Fines Shazia Ilmi ₹25,000 in Privacy Violation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation and Legal Exchange Calcutta High Court Allows Anjani Putra Sena’s Ram Navami Rally in Howrah with Strict Conditions Waqf Amendment Bill Sparks Uproar: Opposition Moves Supreme Court Over Alleged Bias Against Muslims Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments MAHI SINHA 13 Apr 2025 In order to invoke the writ of quo warranto, the Karnataka High Court ruled that lecturers, assistant professors, and associate professors have a legal connection with the university and that their position cannot be classified as a “public office” because they do not perform any public functions. When a public official fails to meet eligibility requirements or when their appointment violates the law, a writ of quo warranto may be issued. “A professor or associate professor has no public duties to perform. A professor or associate professor does not engage in public interactions or carry out their tasks in a public setting. Both the general definition of public office and the specific definition of quo warranto assume that a position or office has obvious public characteristics. It must be a position or office where the occupant is involved in public tasks. Traveling to the public domain should be the order of office’s functional realm. Teachers, professors, and readers cannot all be treated in the same way.” The panel made this ruling while rejecting a plea to remove Dr. M Shivashankar from his Associate Professor position at Bangalore University on the grounds that he lacked the necessary qualifications. The petitioners claimed that Dr. Shivashankar had usurped the public office by accepting the position. Dr. Shivashankar stated that his evaluation was completed correctly and that he was appointed to the position following confirmation that he met UGC requirements. In addition, the University submitted a response justifying his appointment. The Court noted right away that a citizen must first convince the court that the office in question is a public office held by a usurper without legal authority before he may request a writ of quo warranto. It further emphasized that the petitioner’s locus standi must be untarnished and that he must meet the “stricter standard” of a legitimate claimant. Furthermore, the petitioner should not have any kind of private motivations for requesting a writ of quo warranto. He should make sure he is totally shielded from personal considerations as a fact-relator as well. It goes without saying that quo warranto ought to be denied in cases where it results from malice or ill will. Even yet, locus can only be claimed by someone who appears in court legitimately and with a legitimate public purpose. The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, Section 11, which provides a list of the university’s officers, was then cited by the court. It remained Even though responder No. 5 is an Associate Professor or Professor, he is considered a University employee for all purposes, including functional ones. Additionally, it stated that respondent No. 5’s position as an Associate Professor is not a public office. In this instance, the requirement for issuing a writ of quo warranto is not met. According to this perspective, there is no need to consider any other component of merit because no benefit can be given based only on this score. Thus, the court has not addressed any more merit-related issues. The court stated that the aforementioned dimension of the subject matter controversy inevitably goes to show that the petitioners had various axes to grind in filing this petition, styling it as an action in the public interest to seek the quo warranto writ with the intent to oust respondent No. 5 in order to satisfy personal score, based on Dr. Shivashankar’s claims in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners filed the petition with personal and professional vengeance. That perspective concludes that the petition is a misuse of the legal system. The petitioners ought to pay a nominal fee of Rs. 7,500. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Overturns 36-Year-Old Pollution Conviction Against Gujarat Petro Chem Executives Bombay High Court Overturns 36-Year-Old Pollution Conviction Against Gujarat Petro Chem Executives sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Allahabad High Court Sparks Outrage by Granting Bail in Rape Case, Blaming Victim for Her Actions Allahabad High Court Sparks Outrage by Granting Bail in Rape Case, Blaming Victim for Her Actions sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Karnataka High Court: Professors Not Public Officers, Quo Warranto Writ Inapplicable in Academic Appointments Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote