Indian Law Says

[Jack]

SC grants recognition to transgender as third gender

[sheemar]

Court asks 22 websites including Facebook, Google and Yahoo to remove objectionable content by February 6

24 Dec, 2011, PTI
NEW DELHI: Setting a deadline for 22 social networking sites including Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to remove all "anti-religious" or "anti-social" content, a Delhi court today directed the companies to file compliance reports by February 6.

Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar, who had on December 20 in a ex-parte order issued summons to the social networking websites, granted around one and half month for compliance of his order.

Out of 22, the representatives of two websites, Yahoo India Pvt Ltd and Microsoft, appeared in court and submitted that they have not got the copies of court order and complaint against them and pleaded the judge to provide the same.

Santosh Pandey, counsel appearing for complainant Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, assured the court that he would provide the companies with the copy of complaint and other related documents.

Pandey, after the court proceedings, told the reporters that the websites have to submit a compliance report to the court by February 6 detailing what action they have taken to remove the objectionable and derogatory contents from the websites.

The court had on December 20 asked the social networking websites to remove the objectionable content in the form of photographs, videos or text which might hurt religious sentiments.

The court's order came amid a raging controversy over monitoring the content on Internet and of those websites depending on user generated contents, which arose after Union Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal had asked the social networking websites to "screen" the contents.

On the last day of hearing on December 20, the court after going through the several printouts of the objectionable contents, CD and other documents, found them defamatory and derogatory and ordered to take them off from the sites.

"I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs. In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community.

"In such circumstances, I am of the view that plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, the balance of convenience is also against the defendants (websites) and in favour of the plaintiff," the judge had said.

"Moreover, if the defendant will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from the social networking websites, not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury and cannot be compensated in terms of money," the judge had said.

The websites who have been asked to remove objectionable contents includes Facebook India, Facebook, Google India Pvt Ltd, Google Orkut, Youtube, Blogspot, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd, Microsoft, Zombie Time, Exboii, Boardreader, IMC India, My Lot, Shyni Blog and Topix.

[sheemar]

SC unhappy over delay in deciding mercy petitions
PTI
NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over delay by the Centre and state governments in deciding mercy pleas of prisoners on death row, the Supreme Court today sought from them the records of all such cases.

A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhyay said the home secretaries of all the states would send the records of all cases of mercy pleas to states within three days to the Centre, which would then place the same before it.

The court also made it clear that if records are not sent by the state governments, they would do so "at their own risk."

The bench added there have been cases where mercy pleas were decided after 11 years which is a sufficiently long time.

"From the date mercy petitions reach competent authority, what was done?," the bench asked the Centre, observing that in one case it took 11 years to decide the plea, in other it took eight years.

The court brushed aside the Centre's contention that delay was caused due to repeated petitions filed by condemned prisoners in courts.

"There is no bar in filing repeated petitions," the bench observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Punjab terrorist Devender Pal Singh Bhullar who was awarded death penalty for triggering a bomb blast here in September 1993 on Raisina Road outside the Youth Congress office killing nine people.

Bhullar has been pleading that his capital punishment be commuted to life imprisonment as there has been an "inordinate" delay in deciding his mercy petition and he is not mentally sound.

During an earlier hearing, Bhullar's counsel had argued that the delay in dealing with the mercy pleas pending since 2003 amounted to "dehumanising" the convict and subjecting him to "cruelty."

He had said Bhullar's prolonged incarceration awaiting his execution amounted to cruelty and violated his Fundamental Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court had on March 26, 2002, dismissed Bhullar's appeal against the death sentence, awarded by the trial court and endorsed by the Delhi High Court.

He had then filed a review petition which was also dismissed on December 17, 2002. Bhullar then moved a curative petition which too had been rejected by the apex court on March 12, 2003. Bhullar, meanwhile, filed a mercy petition before the President on January 14, 2003.

The President, after a lapse of over eight years, dismissed his mercy plea on May 25 this year.

Bhullar is currently undergoing treatment at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) in Shahdara for hypertension, psychiatric illness and suicidal tendencies.

Earlier, in an affidavit in the Supreme Court, the Centre had justified the delay of over eight years in deciding Bhullar's mercy plea and said "processing a mercy petition is purely a Constitutional process which takes time".

[R S Sidhu]

[R S Sidhu]

[R S Sidhu]

[R S Sidhu]

 
download link

http://lobis.nic.in/phhc/showfile.php?sn=8

[RAJ]

[RAJ]

SC refuses to admit Govt's plea on minority sub-quota

CNN-IBN
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Andhra Pradesh High Court's order quashing 4.5 per cent sub-quota for minorities within 27 per cent OBC quota in educational institutions.

The apex court will hear the matter on Wednesday. The court asked the Centre to place supporting documents for providing 4.5 per cent quota to the minorities.

The court also expressed 'unhappiness' over Centre not placing any documents before the high court to support the policy of quota for minorities.

"Today you are carving out 4.5 per cent from 27 per cent. Tomorrow you will carve another 4.5 per cent without any study, any report. What excercise have you done to reach this figure," the Supreme Court told the Centre.

Refusing to stay the Andhra Pradesh High Court order, which had quashed the central government notification for 4.5 percent sub-quota for minorities, a bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar said it was "unhappy" that the Centre filed an appeal without any supporting documents.

Without issuing any notice, the bench asked Attorney General GE Vahanvati to submit it the supporting documents for carving out 4.5 per cent sub quota from the existing 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The bench posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday saying "we must have some documents before us".

Attorney General Vahanvati submitted that some protection should be granted as the counselling for IITs was on and 325 candidates have qualified for it under the 4.5 per cent sub quota and their career and future could be jeopardised if they are not allowed to appear for the counselling.

The bench, however, said before it passed any order, the Centre will have to place before it some documents.

During the brief hearing, the bench wanted to know from the law officer as to what was the basis and how did the government determine 4.5 percent sub-quota for minorities and carved it out of the 27 percent quota for OBCs.

When the Attorney General sought to point out errors in the high court order, the bench said it was natural for the high court to ask questions on which the Centre was complaining.

"Without placing documents how can you find fault with the high court (order)," the bench said.

(With additional inputs from PTI)

[R S Sidhu]