The Delhi High Court, on Saturday, July 22, upheld the decision to give direct entry to wrestlers Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat in India's Asian Games team. The Delhi HC gave the verdict on a petition filed by wrestlers Antim Phangal and Sujeet Kalkal.

Punia and Phogat were given the exemption by the the Indian Olympic Association-appointed ad-hoc committee following the wrestlers' demand of extending the trails by early August. The extension was sought due to the protest against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in which Punia and Phogat have extensive participation.

Also Watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/watch-harmanpreet-kaur-slams-umpiring-decision-as-bangladesh-avoid-series-defeat-in-thrilling-decider-618469">Harmanpreet Kaur slams umpiring decision as Bangladesh avoid series defeat in thrilling decider</a>

The ad-hoc committee provided the exemptions to defending Asian Games champions and reigning World Wrestling Championship medalist (both Punia and Phogat) as giving extension was not feasible due to the deadline of participant submission at the Asian Games. &nbsp;The exemption was given based on a specific clause in the WFI rule for the selection trials.

"Asian Games: The Selection Trials in all weight categories are mandatory, however, the Selection Committee will have the discretion to select the iconic players like medallists of Olympic / World Championship without trials provided recommendation by Chief Coach / Foreign Expert," reads the rule.

U-20 World Champion Antim Panghal and U-23 Asian Champion Sujeet Kalkal had moved to the Delhi HC on Wednesday, July 19 after Punia and Phogat were given direct entry to the Asian Games team without trials. The two petitioners, however, continued with their trials to be part of the Indian wrestling contingent.&nbsp;

As for the current results, Panghal won her freestyle 53kg trials finals would be a reserve for her weight category at the Asian Games.

Notably, many famous Indian wrestlers including Punia and Phogat protested extensively against the WFI chief for molesting the female wrestlers. Delhi Police had already filed a chargesheet in case and had framed charges against the WFI chief.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Delhi High Court, on Saturday, July 22, upheld the decision to give direct entry to wrestlers Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat in India's Asian Games team. The Delhi HC gave the verdict on a petition filed by wrestlers Antim Phangal and Sujeet Kalkal.

The Delhi High Court, on Saturday, July 22, upheld the decision to give direct entry to wrestlers Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat in India's Asian Games team. The Delhi HC gave the verdict on a petition filed by wrestlers Antim Phangal and Sujeet Kalkal. Punia and Phogat were given the exemption by the the Indian Olympic Association-appointed ad-hoc committee following the wrestlers' demand of extending the trails by early August. The extension was sought due to the protest against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in which Punia and Phogat have extensive participation. Also Watch: Harmanpreet Kaur slams umpiring decision as Bangladesh avoid series defeat in thrilling decider The ad-hoc committee provided the exemptions to defending Asian Games champions and reigning World Wrestling Championship medalist (both Punia and Phogat) as giving extension was not feasible due to the deadline of participant submission at the Asian Games. The exemption was given based on a specific clause in the WFI rule for the selection trials. "Asian Games: The Selection Trials in all weight categories are mandatory, however, the Selection Committee will have the discretion to select the iconic players like medallists of Olympic / World Championship without trials provided recommendation by Chief Coach / Foreign Expert," reads the rule. U-20 World Champion Antim Panghal and U-23 Asian Champion Sujeet Kalkal had moved to the Delhi HC on Wednesday, July 19 after Punia and Phogat were given direct entry to the Asian Games team without trials. The two petitioners, however, continued with their trials to be part of the Indian wrestling contingent. As for the current results, Panghal won her freestyle 53kg trials finals would be a reserve for her weight category at the Asian Games. Notably, many famous Indian wrestlers including Punia and Phogat protested extensively against the WFI chief for molesting the female wrestlers. Delhi Police had already filed a chargesheet in case and had framed charges against the WFI chief. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Delhi High Court upholds trial exemptions given to Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat for Asian Games

in a major win for Indian farmers, the Delhi High Court recently upheld a 2021 order revoking PepsiCo India’s supposed patent for a special potato variety grown for its Lay’s chips. The judgement by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPVFRA) was upheld by the court last week, while also quashing intellectual property protection granted to PepsiCo.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<h2>What has happened so far?</h2>

The legal battle between PepsiCo India and farmers’ rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti began back in 2019 when the former sued a group of farmers for cultivating the FL 2027 potato variety, commonly known as FC5, over alleged infringement of its intellectual property rights (IPR).&nbsp;

Notably, the company had initially also sought $121,050 each for alleged patent infringement.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/big-win-for-indian-farmers-court-rejects-pepsicos-appeal-for-patent-on-potato-seeds-used-for-lays-chips-613457">Big win for Indian farmers, court rejects PepsiCo’s appeal for patent on potato seeds used for Lay’s chips</a>

However, in 2019, the farmers’ rights activist wrote a letter to PPVFRA and accused the company of hiring a private intelligence firm that posed as potential buyers and toured fields of certain potato farmers in the Indian state of Gujarat between January and February.&nbsp;

PepsiCo India asserted that upon testing they found that the independent farmers in the state who were not under its contract were growing the FL 2027 variety of potato. Kuruganti’s letter said that the company filed individual petitions in the Ahmedabad civil court to stop the farmers from growing that type of potato.&nbsp;

Following criticism from lawmakers and farmers, the New York-based company decided to withdraw legal cases the same year, and declared it will solve the issue <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pepsico-proposes-settlement-to-gujarat-potato-farmers-sued-by-it-213790">amicably</a>.

But the fight did not end there, as Kuruganti filed a petition with the PPVFR Authority for revocation of IPR granted to PepsiCo’s FC5 potato variety, arguing that the Indian law does not allow patents on seeds.&nbsp;

<h2>What makes this type of potato so special?</h2>

The FL 2027 was developed in 1996 by a US-based plant breeder who was working with the PepsiCo division, Frito-Lay Agricultural Research. Since then the company has been manufacturing and selling the widely known Lay’s potato chips.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/after-pepsicos-lost-appeal-for-a-patent-on-potato-seeds-indian-farmers-secure-victory-613602">After PepsiCo's lost appeal for a patent on potato seeds, Indian farmers secure victory</a>

Typically, potatoes have more moisture and are also high in sugar. The excess moisture contributes to additional dehydration and energy costs during the processing and manufacturing phase of the chips while the high sugar content in normal potatoes makes them black while frying.&nbsp;

Therefore, the FL 2027, a type of potato with a moisture content at five per cent lower than other potato variations which contain at least 85 per cent moisture makes it ideal for making snacks like chips.

<h2>FL 2027 potato variety in India</h2>

PepsiCo&nbsp;set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989. The production of Lay’s took a hit in 2008, prompting the company to develop and register a variety of potatoes in India.&nbsp;

In 2009, FL 2027 was put to commercial use and PepsiCo India gave select farmers in the Indian state of Punjab permission and seeds to grow the FC5. As of last year, the US-based snacks and beverages giant reportedly works with thousands of farmers in nearly 10 Indian states via contract cultivation and at a fixed price.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/major-win-for-farmers-as-india-revokes-patent-for-pepsicos-lays-potatoes-433938">Major win for farmers as India revokes patent for PepsiCo's Lay's potatoes</a>

In India, the potato was one of the 172 crop species that are eligible to be registered for IPR protection under the PPVFR Act. As of last year, there are over 40 recognised potato varieties, out of which 17 were registered by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Others have been registered by commercial businesses such as PepsiCo India.&nbsp;

<h2>PepsiCo India’s claim over the potato seed</h2>

PepsiCo India was granted a certificate of registration for FL 2027 as an “extant variety” in February 2016 for the next six years. During the validity of the certificate, which could be extended for up to 15 years, the breeder has sole authority over that variety.

This means no one could commercially produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export it without the company’s authorisation.

This became a point of contention for Kuruganti, who said that India does not allow a patent on seed varieties. In line with this view, PPVFRA, who had granted registration to PepsiCo, revoked it by the end of 2021.

 
ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/pepsi-withdraws-lawsuits-against-potato-farmers-in-gujarat-215451">PepsiCo to withdraw case against Gujarat potato farmers</a> 
 
The revocation followed a letter issued by the PPVFRA in February 2022 which said that it is rejecting PepsiCo India’s application for renewal of its registration of the FL 2027.

The matter was taken up to the Delhi High Court in May 2022, when the company filed an appeal against both the refusal to renew as well as the revocation of the certificate.&nbsp;

<h2>Delhi HC upholds decision</h2>

In the court order dated July 5, Delhi HC judge Navin Chawla upheld the decision of the PPVFRA and dismissed claims of public interest violation by PepsiCo. The decision was based on a technicality which dates back to the application based on which the company obtained its certificate.&nbsp;

In a bid to obtain registration of FL 2027 as a “new variety”, PepsiCo in its application back in 2012 wrote the date of the potato variety’s commercialisation in India as December 17, 2009.&nbsp;

A “new variety” requires to conform with the criterion of originality. The propagated or harvested material should not have been sold in India sooner than one year before the date of filing the application, as per an Indian Express report.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/court-rejects-pepsicos-appeal-for-patent-on-potato-seeds-613667">Court rejects Pepsico's appeal for patent on potato seeds</a>

Since FL 2027 could not satisfy the requirement for novelty, it was granted a registration as an “extant variety” which compiles with distinctiveness, uniformity and stability, but not originality. While the date of commercialisation in the application by PepsiCo was 2009, by then it had already been commercialised in Chile, in 2002, said the Indian media report.&nbsp;

Therefore, the certification of the FL 2027 was obtained based on incorrect information by the applicant, the court noted. As per Indian laws, any protection granted for a plant variety is subject to complete disclosure from the applicant about their invention or development.&nbsp;

In this case, PepsiCo failed on two accounts – for applying to register FL 2027 under the category of “new variety” and giving the incorrect date for its first commercialisation.

<h2>How has PepsiCo responded?</h2>

In a statement to WION, PepsiCo India’s spokesperson said, “The appeal was filed on several grounds and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 5th July 2023 upheld the revocation primarily on procedural infirmities in the application and other supporting documents.”&nbsp;

It added, “The Court, however, held that exercising of rights by PepsiCo, granted vide registration of its potato variety under PPVFRA, cannot be construed as against public interest and revocation of registration by PPVFR Authority on ground of ‘public interest’ was erroneous. We are in the process of examining the order in detail to decide our options.”

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

in a major win for Indian farmers, the Delhi High Court recently upheld a 2021 order revoking PepsiCo India’s supposed patent for a special potato variety grown for its Lay’s chips.

in a major win for Indian farmers, the Delhi High Court recently upheld a 2021 order revoking PepsiCo India’s supposed patent for a special potato variety grown for its Lay’s chips. The judgement by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPVFRA) was upheld by the court last week, while also quashing intellectual property protection granted to PepsiCo. What has happened so far? The legal battle between PepsiCo India and farmers’ rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti began back in 2019 when the former sued a group of farmers for cultivating the FL 2027 potato variety, commonly known as FC5, over alleged infringement of its intellectual property rights (IPR). Notably, the company had initially also sought $121,050 each for alleged patent infringement. ALSO READ | Big win for Indian farmers, court rejects PepsiCo’s appeal for patent on potato seeds used for Lay’s chips However, in 2019, the farmers’ rights activist wrote a letter to PPVFRA and accused the company of hiring a private intelligence firm that posed as potential buyers and toured fields of certain potato farmers in the Indian state of Gujarat between January and February. PepsiCo India asserted that upon testing they found that the independent farmers in the state who were not under its contract were growing the FL 2027 variety of potato. Kuruganti’s letter said that the company filed individual petitions in the Ahmedabad civil court to stop the farmers from growing that type of potato. Following criticism from lawmakers and farmers, the New York-based company decided to withdraw legal cases the same year, and declared it will solve the issue amicably. But the fight did not end there, as Kuruganti filed a petition with the PPVFR Authority for revocation of IPR granted to PepsiCo’s FC5 potato variety, arguing that the Indian law does not allow patents on seeds. What makes this type of potato so special? The FL 2027 was developed in 1996 by a US-based plant breeder who was working with the PepsiCo division, Frito-Lay Agricultural Research. Since then the company has been manufacturing and selling the widely known Lay’s potato chips. ALSO WATCH | After PepsiCo's lost appeal for a patent on potato seeds, Indian farmers secure victory Typically, potatoes have more moisture and are also high in sugar. The excess moisture contributes to additional dehydration and energy costs during the processing and manufacturing phase of the chips while the high sugar content in normal potatoes makes them black while frying. Therefore, the FL 2027, a type of potato with a moisture content at five per cent lower than other potato variations which contain at least 85 per cent moisture makes it ideal for making snacks like chips. FL 2027 potato variety in India PepsiCo set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989. The production of Lay’s took a hit in 2008, prompting the company to develop and register a variety of potatoes in India. In 2009, FL 2027 was put to commercial use and PepsiCo India gave select farmers in the Indian state of Punjab permission and seeds to grow the FC5. As of last year, the US-based snacks and beverages giant reportedly works with thousands of farmers in nearly 10 Indian states via contract cultivation and at a fixed price. ALSO READ | Major win for farmers as India revokes patent for PepsiCo's Lay's potatoes In India, the potato was one of the 172 crop species that are eligible to be registered for IPR protection under the PPVFR Act. As of last year, there are over 40 recognised potato varieties, out of which 17 were registered by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Others have been registered by commercial businesses such as PepsiCo India. PepsiCo India’s claim over the potato seed PepsiCo India was granted a certificate of registration for FL 2027 as an “extant variety” in February 2016 for the next six years. During the validity of the certificate, which could be extended for up to 15 years, the breeder has sole authority over that variety. This means no one could commercially produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export it without the company’s authorisation. This became a point of contention for Kuruganti, who said that India does not allow a patent on seed varieties. In line with this view, PPVFRA, who had granted registration to PepsiCo, revoked it by the end of 2021. ALSO READ | PepsiCo to withdraw case against Gujarat potato farmers The revocation followed a letter issued by the PPVFRA in February 2022 which said that it is rejecting PepsiCo India’s application for renewal of its registration of the FL 2027. The matter was taken up to the Delhi High Court in May 2022, when the company filed an appeal against both the refusal to renew as well as the revocation of the certificate. Delhi HC upholds decision In the court order dated July 5, Delhi HC judge Navin Chawla upheld the decision of the PPVFRA and dismissed claims of public interest violation by PepsiCo. The decision was based on a technicality which dates back to the application based on which the company obtained its certificate. In a bid to obtain registration of FL 2027 as a “new variety”, PepsiCo in its application back in 2012 wrote the date of the potato variety’s commercialisation in India as December 17, 2009. A “new variety” requires to conform with the criterion of originality. The propagated or harvested material should not have been sold in India sooner than one year before the date of filing the application, as per an Indian Express report. ALSO WATCH | Court rejects Pepsico's appeal for patent on potato seeds Since FL 2027 could not satisfy the requirement for novelty, it was granted a registration as an “extant variety” which compiles with distinctiveness, uniformity and stability, but not originality. While the date of commercialisation in the application by PepsiCo was 2009, by then it had already been commercialised in Chile, in 2002, said the Indian media report. Therefore, the certification of the FL 2027 was obtained based on incorrect information by the applicant, the court noted. As per Indian laws, any protection granted for a plant variety is subject to complete disclosure from the applicant about their invention or development. In this case, PepsiCo failed on two accounts – for applying to register FL 2027 under the category of “new variety” and giving the incorrect date for its first commercialisation. How has PepsiCo responded? In a statement to WION, PepsiCo India’s spokesperson said, “The appeal was filed on several grounds and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 5th July 2023 upheld the revocation primarily on procedural infirmities in the application and other supporting documents.” It added, “The Court, however, held that exercising of rights by PepsiCo, granted vide registration of its potato variety under PPVFRA, cannot be construed as against public interest and revocation of registration by PPVFR Authority on ground of ‘public interest’ was erroneous. We are in the process of examining the order in detail to decide our options.” (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Explained | Delhi HC rejects PepsiCo’s appeal for patent on potato seeds: What was the case about?

Here, we bring you the news that is trending across WION's social media platforms - Japan to ban recording upskirting & non-consensual sexual videos, Indian immigrant students in US surpass the number of Chinese students there, Delhi High Court allows removal of father's name from minor's passport.

Japan to ban recording upskirting & non-consensual sexual videos | Trending on WION

Having a father’s name on a minor’s passport is not a compulsion, and&nbsp;the mother’s name is enough for the identity proof, Delhi High Court said recently. The direction came while deciding a petition in favour of a single mother, noting that the Passport Manual 2020 recognises several conditions allowing the exclusion of the father’s name from the travel document.&nbsp;

The woman filed a plea contending that since she is a single parent and the father has abandoned the child, authorities should not insist that the father’s name be mentioned on the child’s passport.&nbsp;

Justice Pratibha M Singh, in her April 19 judgement, said that under special situations of matrimonial discord between parents, a child’s passport application may have to be considered by the authorities.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-consumer-panel-takes-on-byjus-and-shah-rukh-khan-for-fraudulent-behaviour-587878">India: Consumer panel takes on Byju’s and Shah Rukh Khan for “fraudulent behaviour”</a>

“Both the passport manual and the OM (office memorandum) relied upon by the respondents recognise that passports can be issued under varying circumstances without the name of the father. Such a relief ought to be considered, depending upon the factual position emerging in each case. No hard and fast rule can be applied,” the court said.

It accordingly directed that the name and the passport be re-issued in favour of the minor child without the name of the father.&nbsp;

In her plea, the petitioner woman said her child’s father had deserted the child even before birth and that she had raised the child single-handedly. It was noted that as per the divorce settlement, the man had neither visitation rights, nor was he paying any alimony for the minor.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/operation-kaveri-indian-air-force-evacuates-1400-including-elderlies-aged-90-and-102-587822">Operation Kaveri: Indian Air Force evacuates 1,400, including elderlies aged 90 and 102</a>

Opposing her plea, the Union government said that it is only in the case of "single unwed parents"&nbsp;where the name of the father need not be mentioned. The counsel appearing for the Centre further said that in the case of "married parents", clause 4.3 of the Passport Manual would be applicable and thus the name of the father would have to be mentioned in the passport.

But rejecting the submission of the government, the court said that in such peculiar cases, where there is no contact of the father with the mother or the child, the name of the father need not be included in the passport.&nbsp;

 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Having a father’s name on a minor’s passport is not a compulsion, and the mother’s name is enough for the identity proof, Delhi High Court said recently. The direction came while deciding a petition in favour of a single mother, noting that the Passport Manual 2020 recognises several conditions allowing the exclusion of the father’s name from the travel document.

Having a father’s name on a minor’s passport is not a compulsion, and the mother’s name is enough for the identity proof, Delhi High Court said recently. The direction came while deciding a petition in favour of a single mother, noting that the Passport Manual 2020 recognises several conditions allowing the exclusion of the father’s name from the travel document. The woman filed a plea contending that since she is a single parent and the father has abandoned the child, authorities should not insist that the father’s name be mentioned on the child’s passport. Justice Pratibha M Singh, in her April 19 judgement, said that under special situations of matrimonial discord between parents, a child’s passport application may have to be considered by the authorities. Also Read | India: Consumer panel takes on Byju’s and Shah Rukh Khan for “fraudulent behaviour” “Both the passport manual and the OM (office memorandum) relied upon by the respondents recognise that passports can be issued under varying circumstances without the name of the father. Such a relief ought to be considered, depending upon the factual position emerging in each case. No hard and fast rule can be applied,” the court said. It accordingly directed that the name and the passport be re-issued in favour of the minor child without the name of the father. In her plea, the petitioner woman said her child’s father had deserted the child even before birth and that she had raised the child single-handedly. It was noted that as per the divorce settlement, the man had neither visitation rights, nor was he paying any alimony for the minor. Also Read | Operation Kaveri: Indian Air Force evacuates 1,400, including elderlies aged 90 and 102 Opposing her plea, the Union government said that it is only in the case of "single unwed parents" where the name of the father need not be mentioned. The counsel appearing for the Centre further said that in the case of "married parents", clause 4.3 of the Passport Manual would be applicable and thus the name of the father would have to be mentioned in the passport. But rejecting the submission of the government, the court said that in such peculiar cases, where there is no contact of the father with the mother or the child, the name of the father need not be included in the passport. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Delhi HC says father's name can be removed from minor's passport

On Tuesday, Delhi High Court asked the makers of the upcoming movie 'Faraaz', which is&nbsp;based on the 2016 Dhaka terror attacks, to discuss and resolve their disputes with two victims' mothers, who recently moved an appeal challenging the film's release. The order was passed by a division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh.

Earlier, a single-judge bench&nbsp;dismissed the mothers' plea, asking them&nbsp;to file an appeal instead.

The division bench said that if the filmmaker&nbsp;has decided to name the movie 'Faraaz', he should first assess and analyse what Urdu poet Ahmad Faraz stood for&nbsp;and resolve the issue.

"If you are naming the movie 'Faraaz', then you should know what Ahmad Faraz stood for. If you wish to be sensitive about the sentiments of a mother, then talk to her," the judge stated.

Contending that the producers have been insensitive about the issue, senior advocate Akhil Sibal representing the mothers, said that the deceased's and their family members' privacy should be maintained as it is one of the main aspects.

The attorney argued, "They did not even come to the family. That's been their approach. The learned single judge holds that since the girls are deceased there can be no right to privacy as regards their lives. That cannot be the approach. The question is whether the parents will have the right to privacy in relation to the lives of their daughters."

In response, the bench stated that it would not injunct the movie's release because the details are already out in the public. The next hearing is scheduled for January 24.

"We can ask them to sit with you and work this out. We don’t know if the law permits us to injunct the release of the film. The court can always ask you to be sensitive. You can't profit from somebody's misery. It is the statement of how right-minded people should conduct themselves. Please sit together," the court told the counsel appearing for Mehta.

Meanwhile, Justice Mridul orally remarked, "People like sensational movies. People like movies based on true stories. What can you do?&nbsp;Not a single holocaust that man has ever experienced hasn't been put on celluloid. What do you do?"

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

On Tuesday, Delhi High Court asked the makers of the upcoming movie 'Faraaz', which is based on the 2016 Dhaka terror attacks, to discuss and resolve their disputes with two victims' mothers, who recently moved an appeal challenging the film's release.

On Tuesday, Delhi High Court asked the makers of the upcoming movie 'Faraaz', which is based on the 2016 Dhaka terror attacks, to discuss and resolve their disputes with two victims' mothers, who recently moved an appeal challenging the film's release. The order was passed by a division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh. Earlier, a single-judge bench dismissed the mothers' plea, asking them to file an appeal instead. The division bench said that if the filmmaker has decided to name the movie 'Faraaz', he should first assess and analyse what Urdu poet Ahmad Faraz stood for and resolve the issue. "If you are naming the movie 'Faraaz', then you should know what Ahmad Faraz stood for. If you wish to be sensitive about the sentiments of a mother, then talk to her," the judge stated. Contending that the producers have been insensitive about the issue, senior advocate Akhil Sibal representing the mothers, said that the deceased's and their family members' privacy should be maintained as it is one of the main aspects. The attorney argued, "They did not even come to the family. That's been their approach. The learned single judge holds that since the girls are deceased there can be no right to privacy as regards their lives. That cannot be the approach. The question is whether the parents will have the right to privacy in relation to the lives of their daughters." In response, the bench stated that it would not injunct the movie's release because the details are already out in the public. The next hearing is scheduled for January 24. "We can ask them to sit with you and work this out. We don’t know if the law permits us to injunct the release of the film. The court can always ask you to be sensitive. You can't profit from somebody's misery. It is the statement of how right-minded people should conduct themselves. Please sit together," the court told the counsel appearing for Mehta. Meanwhile, Justice Mridul orally remarked, "People like sensational movies. People like movies based on true stories. What can you do? Not a single holocaust that man has ever experienced hasn't been put on celluloid. What do you do?" (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Delhi High Court asks makers of 'Faraaz' to settle dispute with victims' mothers

A day before it is to release, web series 'Trial By Fire' got a go-ahead from the Delhi High Court as it refused to grant an interim stay in a suit moved by Real Estate baron Sushil Ansal against the web series. The series is based on the 1997 Uphaar Cinema tragedy. 
 
The Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma rejected the plea of Real-Estate Baron Sushil Ansal for Ad-Interim relief in the matter.Businessman Sushil Ansal, who was convicted in the Upahar Tragedy case, through a suit also sought a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the Production company and others from releasing the limited web series titled `Trial By Fire` which is slated for release on January 13, 2023, on the OTT platform of Netflix. 
 
Netflix`s upcoming series Trial By Fire is based on the bestselling book, 'Trial By Fire: The Tragic Tale of the Uphaar Fire Tragedy' written by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy.&nbsp; 
 
Series stars Rajshri Deshpande and Abhay Deol as the authors Neelam and Shekhar.Appearing for Plaintiff Sushil Ansal`s senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal submitted that he (Sushil Ansal) was held guilty under Section 304A of IPC i.e. Causing death by Negligence and not murder. It is well settled that negligence excludes mens rea and therefore, to call Ansal, a `murderer` and a killer in the `Impugned series.`"Book is grossly defamatory and wilfully false," Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal said.Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Upahar Tragedy Victims Association opposed the suit and said, "When the book was published, an application was filed in the Apex Court that they shouldn`t be allowed to travel abroad. Notice was issued to them and reference of the book was in application." 
 
On behalf of Netflix, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar said, "submit that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and book, on which this web series is based, in public domain since 2016 is being given a character of a picture. The concept of book has been transformed into a film. On January 4, when the official trailer was released the plaintiff didn`t approach the court. He approaches only on January 10 when we are scheduled to release the series on January 13, 2023."Sushil Ansal also sought restraint of further publication and circulation of the book, published by Penguin Random House Ltd. 
 
The suit stated that the `impugned series` is said to be based on true events pertaining to the tragic fire that took place on June 13, 1997, at Uphaar Cinema in Green Park, New Delhi. The official teaser/trailer for the series was released on January 4, with direct references to the plaintiff and the dramatized role of the plaintiff in the said incident and its aftermath.The portrayal of the plaintiff in the trailer and teaser of the series has the propensity to cause further immense and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff`s (Sushil Ansal) reputation and his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the suit continued. 
 
Ansal stated that the release of the series will lead to further prejudice and harm to him and will be in grave breach of his fundamental rights, inter alia, to privacy as envisaged by the Constitution, it stated.It said that on January 4, the plaintiff and his family "were shocked and perturbed to come across a trailer on the OTT platform of Netflix announcing the release of the Impugned Series titled `Trial by Fire` starring prominent actors, produced by Endemol India Pvt Ltd and House of Talkies". 
 
On June 13, 1997, a fire broke out in the erstwhile Uphaar Cinema at Green Park, New Delhi, in which 59 people lost their lives and over 100 were injured. The fire broke out during the screening of the Hindi film `Border`.Sushil Ansal, along with his brother and several others, were convicted in the case that came to be known as the `Uphaar tragedy`. 
 
The owners of the Uphaar Cinema, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, were sentenced to a year in prison after they were found guilty of causing deaths by negligence. However, the latter was pardoned due to his old age.

A day before it is to release, web series 'Trial By Fire' got a go-ahead from the Delhi High Court as it refused to grant an interim stay in a suit moved by Real Estate baron Sushil Ansal against the web series.

A day before it is to release, web series 'Trial By Fire' got a go-ahead from the Delhi High Court as it refused to grant an interim stay in a suit moved by Real Estate baron Sushil Ansal against the web series. The series is based on the 1997 Uphaar Cinema tragedy. The Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma rejected the plea of Real-Estate Baron Sushil Ansal for Ad-Interim relief in the matter.Businessman Sushil Ansal, who was convicted in the Upahar Tragedy case, through a suit also sought a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the Production company and others from releasing the limited web series titled `Trial By Fire` which is slated for release on January 13, 2023, on the OTT platform of Netflix. Netflix`s upcoming series Trial By Fire is based on the bestselling book, 'Trial By Fire: The Tragic Tale of the Uphaar Fire Tragedy' written by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy. Series stars Rajshri Deshpande and Abhay Deol as the authors Neelam and Shekhar.Appearing for Plaintiff Sushil Ansal`s senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal submitted that he (Sushil Ansal) was held guilty under Section 304A of IPC i.e. Causing death by Negligence and not murder. It is well settled that negligence excludes mens rea and therefore, to call Ansal, a `murderer` and a killer in the `Impugned series.`"Book is grossly defamatory and wilfully false," Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal said.Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Upahar Tragedy Victims Association opposed the suit and said, "When the book was published, an application was filed in the Apex Court that they shouldn`t be allowed to travel abroad. Notice was issued to them and reference of the book was in application." On behalf of Netflix, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar said, "submit that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and book, on which this web series is based, in public domain since 2016 is being given a character of a picture. The concept of book has been transformed into a film. On January 4, when the official trailer was released the plaintiff didn`t approach the court. He approaches only on January 10 when we are scheduled to release the series on January 13, 2023."Sushil Ansal also sought restraint of further publication and circulation of the book, published by Penguin Random House Ltd. The suit stated that the `impugned series` is said to be based on true events pertaining to the tragic fire that took place on June 13, 1997, at Uphaar Cinema in Green Park, New Delhi. The official teaser/trailer for the series was released on January 4, with direct references to the plaintiff and the dramatized role of the plaintiff in the said incident and its aftermath.The portrayal of the plaintiff in the trailer and teaser of the series has the propensity to cause further immense and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff`s (Sushil Ansal) reputation and his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the suit continued. Ansal stated that the release of the series will lead to further prejudice and harm to him and will be in grave breach of his fundamental rights, inter alia, to privacy as envisaged by the Constitution, it stated.It said that on January 4, the plaintiff and his family "were shocked and perturbed to come across a trailer on the OTT platform of Netflix announcing the release of the Impugned Series titled `Trial by Fire` starring prominent actors, produced by Endemol India Pvt Ltd and House of Talkies". On June 13, 1997, a fire broke out in the erstwhile Uphaar Cinema at Green Park, New Delhi, in which 59 people lost their lives and over 100 were injured. The fire broke out during the screening of the Hindi film `Border`.Sushil Ansal, along with his brother and several others, were convicted in the case that came to be known as the `Uphaar tragedy`. The owners of the Uphaar Cinema, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, were sentenced to a year in prison after they were found guilty of causing deaths by negligence. However, the latter was pardoned due to his old age.

Delhi HC refuses stay on release of Uphaar tragedy-based web series 'Trial By Fire'

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining the unauthorised use of Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan's iconic voice and his images or any other trait exclusively identifiable with him by any individual.&nbsp; 
 
The court's order came on a lawsuit by the veteran actor alleging exploitation of his 'publicity rights as a celebrity' by several individuals, including the persons behind a 'KBC lottery'.&nbsp; 
 
Bachchan is the host of the popular TV game show Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC). 
 
Justice Navin Chawla said it is undisputed that Bachchan is a well-known personality and is likely to suffer an irreparable loss and disrepute if relief is not granted at this stage. 
 
"I am of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte interim relief," the judge said. 
 
The court directed telecom authorities to take action to pull down websites providing content in violation of Bachchan's rights. 
 
It also directed telecom service providers to block access to telephone numbers circulating infringing messages. 
 
Senior advocate Harish Salve said the relief of injunction was sought not only against the individuals named in the lawsuit but also against unknown parties who may be exploiting Bachchan's publicity rights.

He said besides the lottery, domain names were registered under the actor's name; there was 'Amitabh Bachchan Video Call' and even T-shirts bearing his photographs.

Back in 2018, music maestro Ilayaraja also made a similar announcement. In a video, Ilayaraja stated, “If you wish to sing and perform my songs on stage without prior intimation, you are liable for legal action. This also includes people who play my music in instruments. And you all have to realise this is wrong. The royalty fee would go to Cine Musicians Union.”

“Please understand that I’m not stopping you from singing. You are paying royalty for the money you earn and not for my song. If you’re singing my songs for free, then you won’t have to pay me. But, if you are earning money by singing my songs, what is wrong in me asking a share of it? When the song itself is mine, how can you deny my share? After all, it is a small amount and I do all these to legalise things,” said Ilayaraja.

Playback singer K.J. Yesudas made similar demands in 2004.

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining the unauthorised use of Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan's iconic voice and his images or any other trait exclusively identifiable with him by any individual.

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining the unauthorised use of Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan's iconic voice and his images or any other trait exclusively identifiable with him by any individual. The court's order came on a lawsuit by the veteran actor alleging exploitation of his 'publicity rights as a celebrity' by several individuals, including the persons behind a 'KBC lottery'. Bachchan is the host of the popular TV game show Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC). Justice Navin Chawla said it is undisputed that Bachchan is a well-known personality and is likely to suffer an irreparable loss and disrepute if relief is not granted at this stage. "I am of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte interim relief," the judge said. The court directed telecom authorities to take action to pull down websites providing content in violation of Bachchan's rights. It also directed telecom service providers to block access to telephone numbers circulating infringing messages. Senior advocate Harish Salve said the relief of injunction was sought not only against the individuals named in the lawsuit but also against unknown parties who may be exploiting Bachchan's publicity rights. He said besides the lottery, domain names were registered under the actor's name; there was 'Amitabh Bachchan Video Call' and even T-shirts bearing his photographs. Back in 2018, music maestro Ilayaraja also made a similar announcement. In a video, Ilayaraja stated, “If you wish to sing and perform my songs on stage without prior intimation, you are liable for legal action. This also includes people who play my music in instruments. And you all have to realise this is wrong. The royalty fee would go to Cine Musicians Union.” “Please understand that I’m not stopping you from singing. You are paying royalty for the money you earn and not for my song. If you’re singing my songs for free, then you won’t have to pay me. But, if you are earning money by singing my songs, what is wrong in me asking a share of it? When the song itself is mine, how can you deny my share? After all, it is a small amount and I do all these to legalise things,” said Ilayaraja. Playback singer K.J. Yesudas made similar demands in 2004.

Court bars unauthorised usage of Amitabh Bachchan's voice and images 

Delhi High Court has restrained the unauthorised streaming of upcoming film 'Brahmastra: Part One - Shiva', scheduled to hit the theatres on September 9, by several "rouge" websites, saying piracy has to be curbed and dealt with a heavy hand.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte interim order on a lawsuit by Star India Pvt Ltd, co-producer of the Ranbir Kapoor and Alia Bhatt-starrer film, while noting that the availability of the film online at the same time as its theatrical release or in close proximity of the release would severely impact the producers&nbsp;financially and also erode the value of the film.

"There is no gain saying that piracy has to be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand and injunction against screening of copyrighted content by rogue websites ought to be granted... Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim relief,"&nbsp;said the court in its order dated September 2.

"Defendants No. 1 to 18 (rogue websites) and all others acting for and/or on their behalf are restrained from in any manner hosting, streaming, retransmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and/or communicating to the public, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updating and/or sharing on their websites through the internet or any other platform, the film 'Brahmastra: Part One - Shiva' and contents related thereto, so as to infringe the Plaintiff's copyright therein, till the next date of hearing," the court ordered.

The court directed the 'Domain Name Registrants' to suspend/block the domain names registrations of the rouge websites named by the plaintiff. It also asked the Centre to issue necessary notifications calling upon the internet service providers to block access to these websites.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-%E2%80%98spider-man-no-way-home%E2%80%99-tops-dismal-box-office-after-nine-months-away-513017" hreflang="en">‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ tops dismal box office after nine months away</a>

"Looking at the investments made by the plaintiff in the production and promotion of the film as also the exclusive right vested in it under the provisions of the Copyright Act, this Court prima facie agrees with the plaintiff that if the rogue websites communicate the film in any manner, on any platform, simultaneously with the theatrical release of the film on 09.09.2022 or in its close proximity thereafter, it would severely impact the interest of the plaintiff monetarily and will also erode the value of the film," the court opined.

Seeking relief, the plaintiff argued that any hosting, streaming, reproduction, and distribution of the film without authorisation would infringe its copyright and adversely impact its business.

The court also issued summons on the lawsuit by the plaintiff and listed the case for further hearing on November 29.

Delhi High Court has restrained the unauthorised streaming of upcoming film 'Brahmastra: Part One - Shiva', scheduled to hit the theatres on September 9, by several "rouge" websites, saying piracy has to be curbed and dealt with a heavy hand.

Delhi High Court has restrained the unauthorised streaming of upcoming film 'Brahmastra: Part One - Shiva', scheduled to hit the theatres on September 9, by several "rouge" websites, saying piracy has to be curbed and dealt with a heavy hand. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex parte interim order on a lawsuit by Star India Pvt Ltd, co-producer of the Ranbir Kapoor and Alia Bhatt-starrer film, while noting that the availability of the film online at the same time as its theatrical release or in close proximity of the release would severely impact the producers financially and also erode the value of the film. "There is no gain saying that piracy has to be curbed and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand and injunction against screening of copyrighted content by rogue websites ought to be granted... Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim relief," said the court in its order dated September 2. "Defendants No. 1 to 18 (rogue websites) and all others acting for and/or on their behalf are restrained from in any manner hosting, streaming, retransmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and/or communicating to the public, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updating and/or sharing on their websites through the internet or any other platform, the film 'Brahmastra: Part One - Shiva' and contents related thereto, so as to infringe the Plaintiff's copyright therein, till the next date of hearing," the court ordered. The court directed the 'Domain Name Registrants' to suspend/block the domain names registrations of the rouge websites named by the plaintiff. It also asked the Centre to issue necessary notifications calling upon the internet service providers to block access to these websites. Also read: ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ tops dismal box office after nine months away "Looking at the investments made by the plaintiff in the production and promotion of the film as also the exclusive right vested in it under the provisions of the Copyright Act, this Court prima facie agrees with the plaintiff that if the rogue websites communicate the film in any manner, on any platform, simultaneously with the theatrical release of the film on 09.09.2022 or in its close proximity thereafter, it would severely impact the interest of the plaintiff monetarily and will also erode the value of the film," the court opined. Seeking relief, the plaintiff argued that any hosting, streaming, reproduction, and distribution of the film without authorisation would infringe its copyright and adversely impact its business. The court also issued summons on the lawsuit by the plaintiff and listed the case for further hearing on November 29.

Delhi HC restrains 'rogue' websites from streaming 'Brahmastra', says piracy must be curbed

A Muslim girl who has attained puberty can marry without the consent of her parents under the Mohammedan Law, the Delhi High Court said. The girl can also reside with her husband even if she is underage, the court added.&nbsp;

The observation was made by Justice Jasmeet Singh during a recent hearing of a plea filed by a couple, a minor girl and a man. They were seeking protection and also wanted to ensure that nobody separates them by force.&nbsp;

India-based news agency IANS reported that the couple got married on March 11, which was against the wishes of the girl's parents.&nbsp;

At the time of the marriage, the man was 25 years old and as per her family and police, the girl was 15 years old in March. However, as per the Aadhaar card that was produced before the court by her counsel, she is over 19 years old.&nbsp;

In an order dated August 17, Justice Singh said, "It is thus clear that as per Mohammedan Law, the girl who had attained the age of puberty could marry without consent of her parents and had the right to reside with her husband even when she was less than 18 years of age and thus otherwise (is a) minor girl."&nbsp;

The full copy of the order was released on Monday evening.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/two-more-states-in-india-now-affected-by-the-tomato-flu-outbreak-509470">Two more states in India now affected by the tomato flu outbreak</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;

The court also referred to a verdict of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, stating as per Article 195 from the book 'Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla'.&nbsp;

The text stated that every Mohamedan of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage.&nbsp;

The petitioners have noted that they were in love with each other and married on March 11, 2022. The ceremony was conducted in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals by Maulana Imtiyaz of Jokihat Masjid, District Aauriya, Bihar.&nbsp;

But the parents of the girl were opposing the marriage and they have reportedly registered a case under Section 363 IPC (Punishment for kidnapping) against the man.&nbsp;

Section 376 IPC (Punishment for sexual assault) and Section 6 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act have been added later. Though initially, the FIR was under Section 363 IPC.&nbsp;

The plea said that the girl was regularly beaten by her parents at home and the parent even tried to forcibly marry her off to someone else despite her love affair.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-want-to-change-uk-india-relationship-to-make-it-more-two-way-rishi-sunak-509456">I want to change UK-India relationship to make it more two-way: Rishi Sunak</a>&nbsp;

Later, after several due processes, it was revealed that the couple has had sexual intercourse and as per the directions of the Child Welfare Committee, the child victim has been kept at Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Hari Nagar.&nbsp;

The couple is also expecting a child together, the petitioner's counsel stated that the woman is pregnant.&nbsp;

The court allowed them to stay together and also directed the authorities to ensure their personal safety and protection.&nbsp;

It said, "Hence, the petitioners being lawfully wedded to each other cannot be denied the company of each other which is the essence of the marriage. If the petitioners are separated, it will only cause more trauma to the petitioner no.1 and her unborn child."&nbsp;

"The aim of the state here is to protect the best interest of Petitioner no.1. If the petitioner has wilfully consented to the marriage and is happy, the state is no one to enter private space of the petitioner and separate the couple. The doing of the same will tantamount to encroachment of personal space by the state," it added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A Muslim girl who has attained puberty can marry without the consent of her parents under the Mohammedan Law, the Delhi High Court said. The girl can also reside with her husband even if she is underage, the court added.

A Muslim girl who has attained puberty can marry without the consent of her parents under the Mohammedan Law, the Delhi High Court said. The girl can also reside with her husband even if she is underage, the court added. The observation was made by Justice Jasmeet Singh during a recent hearing of a plea filed by a couple, a minor girl and a man. They were seeking protection and also wanted to ensure that nobody separates them by force. India-based news agency IANS reported that the couple got married on March 11, which was against the wishes of the girl's parents. At the time of the marriage, the man was 25 years old and as per her family and police, the girl was 15 years old in March. However, as per the Aadhaar card that was produced before the court by her counsel, she is over 19 years old. In an order dated August 17, Justice Singh said, "It is thus clear that as per Mohammedan Law, the girl who had attained the age of puberty could marry without consent of her parents and had the right to reside with her husband even when she was less than 18 years of age and thus otherwise (is a) minor girl." The full copy of the order was released on Monday evening. ALSO READ | Two more states in India now affected by the tomato flu outbreak The court also referred to a verdict of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, stating as per Article 195 from the book 'Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla'. The text stated that every Mohamedan of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage. The petitioners have noted that they were in love with each other and married on March 11, 2022. The ceremony was conducted in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals by Maulana Imtiyaz of Jokihat Masjid, District Aauriya, Bihar. But the parents of the girl were opposing the marriage and they have reportedly registered a case under Section 363 IPC (Punishment for kidnapping) against the man. Section 376 IPC (Punishment for sexual assault) and Section 6 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act have been added later. Though initially, the FIR was under Section 363 IPC. The plea said that the girl was regularly beaten by her parents at home and the parent even tried to forcibly marry her off to someone else despite her love affair. ALSO READ | I want to change UK-India relationship to make it more two-way: Rishi Sunak Later, after several due processes, it was revealed that the couple has had sexual intercourse and as per the directions of the Child Welfare Committee, the child victim has been kept at Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Hari Nagar. The couple is also expecting a child together, the petitioner's counsel stated that the woman is pregnant. The court allowed them to stay together and also directed the authorities to ensure their personal safety and protection. It said, "Hence, the petitioners being lawfully wedded to each other cannot be denied the company of each other which is the essence of the marriage. If the petitioners are separated, it will only cause more trauma to the petitioner no.1 and her unborn child." "The aim of the state here is to protect the best interest of Petitioner no.1. If the petitioner has wilfully consented to the marriage and is happy, the state is no one to enter private space of the petitioner and separate the couple. The doing of the same will tantamount to encroachment of personal space by the state," it added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Delhi HC: Muslim girls on attaining puberty can marry without parents' consent

The makers of the upcoming movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that disclaimer will be depicted during the running of the relevant scenes of a prenatal sex-determination test in the movie. 
 
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri after the conclusion of the submission said that Senior Lawyer appearing for moviemakers, without prejudice to his submissions, has agreed for disclaimer to be depicted during the running of both the relevant scenes. 
 
The court noted the submission of senior counsel representing the moviemakers that similar warnings/disclaimers shall be depicted on all formats including trailer and YouTube. The court further noted that the film has already been certified and is scheduled to be released on May 13. 
 
On Monday, the Delhi High Court had observed that the film can't show scenes related to prenatal sex determination without any disclaimer, adding that the scene has been shown without disclosure or message. 
 
The court was hearing a plea against the upcoming movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar'&nbsp;over the depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. Meanwhile, the court also appreciated the petitioner and said, "You brought a good cause and we think you achieved your purpose the moment they gave disclaimer." The plea has sought appropriate direction to the Centre and other respondents to censor/delete the ultrasound clinic centre scene of the movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' in which the sex selection technique is allegedly being shown and abortion of a girl child without disclosure.&nbsp; 
 
The plea states that this is a violation of sections 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 6, and 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. It also requested that since the movie is being released across India on May 13, the court grants the request before the release. 
 
The plea moved by an NGO through its president Manish Jain states, "In the Jayeshbhai Jordaar's trailer, we saw one of the scenes in which the couple and his family member have gone for the sex selection in the ultrasound clinic and the doctor is operating the machine and showing the radiology image of the baby in the womb of the mother." 
"On being asked by the family member, Agar Ladka Hua toh Jai Shree Krishna and Ladkee hue toh Jai Mata Di followed by an abortion of the girl child," the plea read. 
 
Last week, the plea filed through Advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak mentioned the matter before the acting chief justice court where the court asked the lawyer to file all the documents today we will hear it tomorrow. Advocate Pathak stated that prenatal sex determination is statutorily prohibited and prays that the scene in question is deleted on the ground of promoting prohibited activities. 
 
Jayeshbhai Jordaar is an upcoming comedy-drama film directed by Divyang Thakkar and produced by Aditya Chopra and Maneesh Sharma under Yash Raj Films.&nbsp; 
 
The film stars Ranveer Singh in the titular role as the son of a traditional Gujarati sarpanch, who believes in equal rights between males and females in society. The film is scheduled to be released theatrically on May 13, 2022.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The makers of the upcoming movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that disclaimer will be depicted during the running of the relevant scenes of a prenatal sex-determination test in the movie.

The makers of the upcoming movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that disclaimer will be depicted during the running of the relevant scenes of a prenatal sex-determination test in the movie. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri after the conclusion of the submission said that Senior Lawyer appearing for moviemakers, without prejudice to his submissions, has agreed for disclaimer to be depicted during the running of both the relevant scenes. The court noted the submission of senior counsel representing the moviemakers that similar warnings/disclaimers shall be depicted on all formats including trailer and YouTube. The court further noted that the film has already been certified and is scheduled to be released on May 13. On Monday, the Delhi High Court had observed that the film can't show scenes related to prenatal sex determination without any disclaimer, adding that the scene has been shown without disclosure or message. The court was hearing a plea against the upcoming movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' over the depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. Meanwhile, the court also appreciated the petitioner and said, "You brought a good cause and we think you achieved your purpose the moment they gave disclaimer." The plea has sought appropriate direction to the Centre and other respondents to censor/delete the ultrasound clinic centre scene of the movie 'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' in which the sex selection technique is allegedly being shown and abortion of a girl child without disclosure. The plea states that this is a violation of sections 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 6, and 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. It also requested that since the movie is being released across India on May 13, the court grants the request before the release. The plea moved by an NGO through its president Manish Jain states, "In the Jayeshbhai Jordaar's trailer, we saw one of the scenes in which the couple and his family member have gone for the sex selection in the ultrasound clinic and the doctor is operating the machine and showing the radiology image of the baby in the womb of the mother." "On being asked by the family member, Agar Ladka Hua toh Jai Shree Krishna and Ladkee hue toh Jai Mata Di followed by an abortion of the girl child," the plea read. Last week, the plea filed through Advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak mentioned the matter before the acting chief justice court where the court asked the lawyer to file all the documents today we will hear it tomorrow. Advocate Pathak stated that prenatal sex determination is statutorily prohibited and prays that the scene in question is deleted on the ground of promoting prohibited activities. Jayeshbhai Jordaar is an upcoming comedy-drama film directed by Divyang Thakkar and produced by Aditya Chopra and Maneesh Sharma under Yash Raj Films. The film stars Ranveer Singh in the titular role as the son of a traditional Gujarati sarpanch, who believes in equal rights between males and females in society. The film is scheduled to be released theatrically on May 13, 2022.

'Jayeshbhai Jordaar' to have disclaimer in relevant scenes, makers assure Delhi HC

In the past couple of days, a quite unusual and striking hashtag has dominated the social media trends in India, especially on the microblogging site Twitter.&nbsp;

Hashtag 'Marriage Strike' was trending in India, with thousands of people weighing in with their opinion and thought process around the context.&nbsp;

But what is the context?

The trend started as High Court in India is debating the possibility of criminalising 'marital rape'. Amid the ongoing Court proceedings, some social media users have used the hashtag #MarriageStrike to talk about the potential impact of the move (if it happens).&nbsp;Some have claimed that the move might favour women. Some men have vowed to never ever get married.&nbsp;

There are also claims on how the law could help those who are suffering in silence.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The social media debate got heated when the men vs women narratives were brought in. The topic created a huge divide between the difference in opinions of men and women.&nbsp;

The story so far...

The Delhi High Court Thursday (January 20) deliberated upon the challenge raised to the exception under the rape law that protects a husband from prosecution for a non-consensual sexual act with his wife and asked whether the same could be unconstitutional if the law was gender-neutral.&nbsp;

The bench is hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women's Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Amicus Curiae in the matter, argued before the division bench of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar of Delhi High Court that a married woman can be subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent then that exception too must be viewed as an instrument of oppression.

What does the law say?

The exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, says sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

Amicus John submitted that a class of individuals who enjoyed legal immunity from prosecution due to exception will now lose it if it is declared unconstitutional.

"That is not creation of a new offence. It is simply lifting of immunity from prosecution," the advocate submitted demanding to strike down the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

Social debate

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Go on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> before it's too late. <a href="https://t.co/Qonz6jtTJR">pic.twitter.com/Qonz6jtTJR</a>
— pramod arya (@pramod114) <a href="https://twitter.com/pramod114/status/1485125603309555716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Indian Judiciary allows the married women to have sex with her boyfriend and deny sex to her husband. If the husband insist to exercise his conjugal rights he gets tagged as a Rapist. Hence <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> Nationwide <a href="https://t.co/3Do2u7a05c">https://t.co/3Do2u7a05c</a>
— Ashraf Ansari (@ashrafnansari) <a href="https://twitter.com/ashrafnansari/status/1485215451143884800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Save yourselves from marriage. Marriage has become crime. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/8VJJo0qEBz">pic.twitter.com/8VJJo0qEBz</a>
— Virain (@virainizm) <a href="https://twitter.com/virainizm/status/1485175554122735616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Thumb Rule | 
 
▪️If u r planning to get married, stay on rent for first 5yrs 
▪️Buy property only if u are sure of ur marriage &amp; not due to pressure from in-laws 
▪️Have a child only if u r sure of relationship &amp; not under compulsion from wife, ur parents or society<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a>
— Men’s Day Out (@MensDayOutIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/MensDayOutIndia/status/1485213678102532097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I am a educated man and working as Software Engineer... I want to save myself from biased law. I am on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a>
— smehra1123 (@smehra1123) <a href="https://twitter.com/smehra1123/status/1484923969539289089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
When you speak to feminist.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/c2JwqgXyBq">pic.twitter.com/c2JwqgXyBq</a>
— Pahadi (@pahadi005) <a href="https://twitter.com/pahadi005/status/1484517988564750336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Wow , all are men and boys are discussing about <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> . Boys and Men well done 🤠 <a href="https://t.co/qSPSDcOIi9">pic.twitter.com/qSPSDcOIi9</a>
— Gabbar 2.0 (@khabribanda) <a href="https://twitter.com/khabribanda/status/1485142747267100676?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
To all my brother's &amp; their fmly members who r victims of fake matrimonial cases. Keep patience &amp; do not worry...Havind d right mindset is very important to fight these fake cases. Keep trending <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> to save other ppl from these gender biased laws. Together we win 👍 <a href="https://t.co/VzTPBJOzcI">pic.twitter.com/VzTPBJOzcI</a>
— Manish$ (@Fight4Right81) <a href="https://twitter.com/Fight4Right81/status/1485233623762862081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The fact that Indian men are on “marriage strike” against marital rape laws tells us one basic thing about our society, men want unlimited access to women’s bodies. Don’t tell me these laws will be misused. Just know that if you are on strike it’s best you don’t get married.
— Ntasha Bhardwaj (@ntashabhardwaj) <a href="https://twitter.com/ntashabhardwaj/status/1484475134391947270?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just woke up and I’m seeing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a> all over my timeline. I believe it’ll help innocent men. <a href="https://t.co/01yf7KyzqV">pic.twitter.com/01yf7KyzqV</a>
— Road Runner 🇮🇳 (@iwinfairly) <a href="https://twitter.com/iwinfairly/status/1483671392210284548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Men deciding to opt out of marriage if marital rape is criminalised is a huge win-win for the feminist movement. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarriageStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarriageStrike</a>
— Siddharth (@DearthOfSid) <a href="https://twitter.com/DearthOfSid/status/1483737615493120000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

(With inputs from agencies)

In the past couple of days, a quite unusual and striking hashtag has dominated the social media trends in India, especially on the microblogging site Twitter. Hashtag 'Marriage Strike' was trending in India, with thousands of people weighing in with their opinion and thought process around the context.

In the past couple of days, a quite unusual and striking hashtag has dominated the social media trends in India, especially on the microblogging site Twitter. Hashtag 'Marriage Strike' was trending in India, with thousands of people weighing in with their opinion and thought process around the context. But what is the context? The trend started as High Court in India is debating the possibility of criminalising 'marital rape'. Amid the ongoing Court proceedings, some social media users have used the hashtag #MarriageStrike to talk about the potential impact of the move (if it happens). Some have claimed that the move might favour women. Some men have vowed to never ever get married. There are also claims on how the law could help those who are suffering in silence. The social media debate got heated when the men vs women narratives were brought in. The topic created a huge divide between the difference in opinions of men and women. The story so far... The Delhi High Court Thursday (January 20) deliberated upon the challenge raised to the exception under the rape law that protects a husband from prosecution for a non-consensual sexual act with his wife and asked whether the same could be unconstitutional if the law was gender-neutral. The bench is hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women's Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law. Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Amicus Curiae in the matter, argued before the division bench of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar of Delhi High Court that a married woman can be subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent then that exception too must be viewed as an instrument of oppression. What does the law say? The exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, says sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. Amicus John submitted that a class of individuals who enjoyed legal immunity from prosecution due to exception will now lose it if it is declared unconstitutional. "That is not creation of a new offence. It is simply lifting of immunity from prosecution," the advocate submitted demanding to strike down the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Social debate Go on #MarriageStrike before it's too late. pic.twitter.com/Qonz6jtTJR — pramod arya (@pramod114) January 23, 2022 × The Indian Judiciary allows the married women to have sex with her boyfriend and deny sex to her husband. If the husband insist to exercise his conjugal rights he gets tagged as a Rapist. Hence #MarriageStrike Nationwide https://t.co/3Do2u7a05c — Ashraf Ansari (@ashrafnansari) January 23, 2022 × Save yourselves from marriage. Marriage has become crime. #MarriageStrike pic.twitter.com/8VJJo0qEBz — Virain (@virainizm) January 23, 2022 × Thumb Rule | ▪️If u r planning to get married, stay on rent for first 5yrs ▪️Buy property only if u are sure of ur marriage & not due to pressure from in-laws ▪️Have a child only if u r sure of relationship & not under compulsion from wife, ur parents or society#MarriageStrike — Men’s Day Out (@MensDayOutIndia) January 23, 2022 × I am a educated man and working as Software Engineer... I want to save myself from biased law. I am on #MarriageStrike — smehra1123 (@smehra1123) January 22, 2022 × When you speak to feminist.#MarriageStrike pic.twitter.com/c2JwqgXyBq — Pahadi (@pahadi005) January 21, 2022 × Wow , all are men and boys are discussing about #MarriageStrike . Boys and Men well done 🤠 pic.twitter.com/qSPSDcOIi9 — Gabbar 2.0 (@khabribanda) January 23, 2022 × To all my brother's & their fmly members who r victims of fake matrimonial cases. Keep patience & do not worry...Havind d right mindset is very important to fight these fake cases. Keep trending #MarriageStrike to save other ppl from these gender biased laws. Together we win 👍 pic.twitter.com/VzTPBJOzcI — Manish$ (@Fight4Right81) January 23, 2022 × The fact that Indian men are on “marriage strike” against marital rape laws tells us one basic thing about our society, men want unlimited access to women’s bodies. Don’t tell me these laws will be misused. Just know that if you are on strike it’s best you don’t get married. — Ntasha Bhardwaj (@ntashabhardwaj) January 21, 2022 × Just woke up and I’m seeing #MarriageStrike all over my timeline. I believe it’ll help innocent men. pic.twitter.com/01yf7KyzqV — Road Runner 🇮🇳 (@iwinfairly) January 19, 2022 × Men deciding to opt out of marriage if marital rape is criminalised is a huge win-win for the feminist movement. #MarriageStrike — Siddharth (@DearthOfSid) January 19, 2022 × (With inputs from agencies)

Why do men want 'Marriage Strike'? A social media debate is raging in India over criminalising marital rape

“Sex workers can say no, why not married women?” This was the Delhi High Court’s question to the government on marital rape. Palki Sharma tells you why it’s high time India criminalised marital rape.

Gravitas: Time for India to criminalise marital rape

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court.

According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court.

If the recommendation is approved by the central government, Kirpal will be the first openly gay judge of a constitutional court in India.

“The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 11th November, 2021, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Saurabh Kirpal, advocate, as judge in the Delhi High Court,” read the collegium’s resolution stated.

49-year-old Kripal&nbsp;has been an advocate for LGBTQ rights in India. He was the lawyer for Navtej Singh Johar and Ritu Dalmia, the two petitioners who fought against the removal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality.

It was in this landmark case&nbsp;that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in India in 2018.

However, this is not the first time that he was recommended for the judge post. Earlier in 2017, the intelligence officials were tasked to carry out mandatory background check on him after his name was recommended.

But his elevation was deferred after the officials came out with an adverse report in 2018 and 2019, suggesting Kirpal’s partner, who is a foreign national, might pose a security risk.

In March 2021, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bobde, writing to the Union government, sought additional information and more clarity on its reservations over his elevation.

But the government reiterated its apprehensions against his partner in April.

Later that time, Kirpal was designated as a senior advocate by the Delhi high court after all 31 judges of the high court unanimously endorsed his designation.

Following the recommendations by the judges of Delhi high court, the current CJI justice Ramana and the four other most senior judges of the collegium, after consulting the other judges in the top court, decided to send Kirpal’s name for appointment as a judge in the Delhi high court.

(With inputs from agencies)

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court.

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court. If the recommendation is approved by the central government, Kirpal will be the first openly gay judge of a constitutional court in India. “The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 11th November, 2021, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Saurabh Kirpal, advocate, as judge in the Delhi High Court,” read the collegium’s resolution stated. 49-year-old Kripal has been an advocate for LGBTQ rights in India. He was the lawyer for Navtej Singh Johar and Ritu Dalmia, the two petitioners who fought against the removal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality. It was in this landmark case that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in India in 2018. However, this is not the first time that he was recommended for the judge post. Earlier in 2017, the intelligence officials were tasked to carry out mandatory background check on him after his name was recommended. But his elevation was deferred after the officials came out with an adverse report in 2018 and 2019, suggesting Kirpal’s partner, who is a foreign national, might pose a security risk. In March 2021, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bobde, writing to the Union government, sought additional information and more clarity on its reservations over his elevation. But the government reiterated its apprehensions against his partner in April. Later that time, Kirpal was designated as a senior advocate by the Delhi high court after all 31 judges of the high court unanimously endorsed his designation. Following the recommendations by the judges of Delhi high court, the current CJI justice Ramana and the four other most senior judges of the collegium, after consulting the other judges in the top court, decided to send Kirpal’s name for appointment as a judge in the Delhi high court. (With inputs from agencies)

India likely to get first openly gay person as judge of high court

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them.

The bench said Twitter was doing a good job and people were happy with it.

"Things are going to be removed or not?" the court asked the counsel for Twitter.

"You should respect the sentiments of general public as you are doing business for public at large. Their sentiments shall be given due importance... Why you should do things like this. You should remove this," a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said.

"You remove it. You have done it in Rahul Gandhi's case also," the bench added.

Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate representing Twitter, said that if the court mentions it in the order, Twitter will abide by the direction.

The matter will be heard further on November 30.

Petition, in this case, was filed by one Aditya Singh Deshwal who said that he came across highly objectionable posts on Hindu Goddess Kaali which was put up by user with the name @AtheistRepublic. He said in his petition that the goddess was represented in disgraceful and outrageous manner.

The petitioner, represented through senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, said he intimated the grievance officer of Twitter that the content put by the used was in grave contravention of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and non-compliance of the rules shall make Twitter lose its legal immunity provided under the Information Technology Act.

He claimed that Twitter repudiated that the content in the account is not of a category for which it takes action and therefore, it cannot be removed.

The plea sought direction for Twitter to remove the objectionable content from its platform and also permanently suspend the concerned used account.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them.

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them. The bench said Twitter was doing a good job and people were happy with it. "Things are going to be removed or not?" the court asked the counsel for Twitter. "You should respect the sentiments of general public as you are doing business for public at large. Their sentiments shall be given due importance... Why you should do things like this. You should remove this," a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said. "You remove it. You have done it in Rahul Gandhi's case also," the bench added. Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate representing Twitter, said that if the court mentions it in the order, Twitter will abide by the direction. The matter will be heard further on November 30. Petition, in this case, was filed by one Aditya Singh Deshwal who said that he came across highly objectionable posts on Hindu Goddess Kaali which was put up by user with the name @AtheistRepublic. He said in his petition that the goddess was represented in disgraceful and outrageous manner. The petitioner, represented through senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, said he intimated the grievance officer of Twitter that the content put by the used was in grave contravention of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and non-compliance of the rules shall make Twitter lose its legal immunity provided under the Information Technology Act. He claimed that Twitter repudiated that the content in the account is not of a category for which it takes action and therefore, it cannot be removed. The plea sought direction for Twitter to remove the objectionable content from its platform and also permanently suspend the concerned used account. (With inputs from agencies)

Twitter asked by Delhi High Court to remove objectionable content on Hindu Goddess

On Monday, several pleas, including those from two couples, seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the special, Hindu and foreign marriage laws have been listed for final hearing by the Delhi High Court.

Justice Jyoti Singh and Chief Justice D N Patel granted the parties time to file their replies and rejoinders and set November 30 for a final hearing in the matter.

In the first petition, Abhijit Iyer Mitra and three other petitioners assert that same-sex marriage is impossible despite the Supreme Court decriminalising consensual homosexual acts and want them to be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA).

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/30-years-in-tracing-the-history-of-gay-marriage-252990">30 years in: Tracing the history of gay marriage</a>

The second appeal is brought by two women seeking to get married under the SMA, contesting the statutory provisions and their limitations pertaining to same-sex marriages.

The third appeal comes from two men who got married in the US but were denied registration of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA).

Another petition calls for the right for a spouse of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder to apply for registration as an OCI regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

This petition is by a married same-sex couple Joydeep Sengupta, an OCI, and Russell Blaine Stephens, a US citizen. Along with the couple, an Indian citizen and a queer rights academic and activist Mario Dpenha has also filed this petition.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/they-said-yes-swiss-voters-back-same-sex-marriage-416213">They said yes! Swiss voters back same-sex marriage</a>

Advocate Karuna Nandy, representing the couple, stated that they got married in New York, and contends that the Citizenship Act is silent on the gender or sexuality of the spouse and that a person married to an overseas citizen of India for two years should be declared eligible to apply as a spouse for an OCI card.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that 'spouse' meant either the husband or wife and that 'marriage' indicated heterosexual unions and that a specific reply to the Citizenship Act was not required.

'The law as it stands...Personal laws are settled and marriage which is contemplated to be is between (a) biological man and (a) biological woman," he said, adding that petitioners' perception of the Supreme Court's decriminalisation verdict is unclear.

"The issue here is whether marriage is permissible between homosexual couples. Your lordships have to see that. There is some misconception regarding Navtej Singh Johar case. It merely decriminalises consensual homosexual act. It does not talk about marriage," Mehta contended.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriages-not-recognised-by-our-laws-society-and-our-values-centre-to-hc-327439">Same sex marriages not recognised by our laws, society and our values: Centre to HC</a>

According to Saurabh Kirpal, a senior advocate representing one of the petitioners, while the Supreme Court didn't specifically permit same-sex marriage, the inevitable implication in Constitutional matters provides for it, this being how Constitutional jurisprudence operates.

In India, the central government has opposed same-sex marriage, claiming it is not just the union of two individuals, but an institution between a biological male and a biological female.

Moreover, it said that judicial interference would create "complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws".

(With inputs from agencies)

On Monday, several pleas, including those from two couples, seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the special, Hindu and foreign marriage laws have been listed for final hearing by the Delhi High Court.

On Monday, several pleas, including those from two couples, seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the special, Hindu and foreign marriage laws have been listed for final hearing by the Delhi High Court. Justice Jyoti Singh and Chief Justice D N Patel granted the parties time to file their replies and rejoinders and set November 30 for a final hearing in the matter. In the first petition, Abhijit Iyer Mitra and three other petitioners assert that same-sex marriage is impossible despite the Supreme Court decriminalising consensual homosexual acts and want them to be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA). Also read | 30 years in: Tracing the history of gay marriage The second appeal is brought by two women seeking to get married under the SMA, contesting the statutory provisions and their limitations pertaining to same-sex marriages. The third appeal comes from two men who got married in the US but were denied registration of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA). Another petition calls for the right for a spouse of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder to apply for registration as an OCI regardless of sexual orientation or gender. This petition is by a married same-sex couple Joydeep Sengupta, an OCI, and Russell Blaine Stephens, a US citizen. Along with the couple, an Indian citizen and a queer rights academic and activist Mario Dpenha has also filed this petition. Also read | They said yes! Swiss voters back same-sex marriage Advocate Karuna Nandy, representing the couple, stated that they got married in New York, and contends that the Citizenship Act is silent on the gender or sexuality of the spouse and that a person married to an overseas citizen of India for two years should be declared eligible to apply as a spouse for an OCI card. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that 'spouse' meant either the husband or wife and that 'marriage' indicated heterosexual unions and that a specific reply to the Citizenship Act was not required. 'The law as it stands...Personal laws are settled and marriage which is contemplated to be is between (a) biological man and (a) biological woman," he said, adding that petitioners' perception of the Supreme Court's decriminalisation verdict is unclear. "The issue here is whether marriage is permissible between homosexual couples. Your lordships have to see that. There is some misconception regarding Navtej Singh Johar case. It merely decriminalises consensual homosexual act. It does not talk about marriage," Mehta contended. Also read | Same sex marriages not recognised by our laws, society and our values: Centre to HC According to Saurabh Kirpal, a senior advocate representing one of the petitioners, while the Supreme Court didn't specifically permit same-sex marriage, the inevitable implication in Constitutional matters provides for it, this being how Constitutional jurisprudence operates. In India, the central government has opposed same-sex marriage, claiming it is not just the union of two individuals, but an institution between a biological male and a biological female. Moreover, it said that judicial interference would create "complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws". (With inputs from agencies)

Delhi High Court sets November 30 for final hearing on same-sex marriages in India

The Delhi High Court, in a very revolutionary decision, backed the need for a Uniform Civil Code observing that there is a need for a Code - 'common to all' in the country and asked the central government to take the necessary steps in this matter.

India: What is the uniform civil code?

Whatsapp told the Delhi High Court on Friday that till the data protection bill comes into force, it would not compel users to opt for its new privacy policy as it has been put on hold.

Whatsapp also clarified before the bench of Chief justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh that it would not limit the functionality for users who are not opting for a new privacy policy in the meantime.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/whatsapp-goes-to-court-over-indian-governments-new-it-rules-387479">WhatsApp goes to court over Indian government's new IT rules</a>

Appearing for the instant messaging platform, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said, "We voluntarily agreed to put it (the policy) on hold... We will not compel people to accept."

Salve said that Whatsapp would nonetheless continue to display the update to its users.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-is-whatsapp-tricking-users-into-consent-389315/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The court is hearing the appeals of Facebook and its firm WhatsApp against the single-judge order refusing to stop the competition regulator CCI's order directing a probe into WhatsApp's new privacy policy.&nbsp;

Whatsapp told the Delhi High Court on Friday that till the data protection bill comes into force, it would not compel users to opt for its new privacy policy as it has been put on hold.

Whatsapp told the Delhi High Court on Friday that till the data protection bill comes into force, it would not compel users to opt for its new privacy policy as it has been put on hold. Whatsapp also clarified before the bench of Chief justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh that it would not limit the functionality for users who are not opting for a new privacy policy in the meantime. Also read | WhatsApp goes to court over Indian government's new IT rules Appearing for the instant messaging platform, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said, "We voluntarily agreed to put it (the policy) on hold... We will not compel people to accept." Salve said that Whatsapp would nonetheless continue to display the update to its users. The court is hearing the appeals of Facebook and its firm WhatsApp against the single-judge order refusing to stop the competition regulator CCI's order directing a probe into WhatsApp's new privacy policy.

Won't compel users to accept new privacy policy, WhatsApp tells Delhi HC

Twitter has informed the Delhi High Court that it has appointed an interim Chief Compliance Officer for India and will make other key appointments soon. Twitter further said that it needed eight weeks' time to appoint a grievance officer in India in compliance with the new IT rules.

Twitter appoints interim Chief Compliance Officer for India, yet to fill other posts

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday slammed Twitter for inordinate delay in making key appointments in compliance with the country’s new digital laws. The high court also directed Twitter to explain why no new India-based grievance officer has been appointed after the resignation of Dharmendra Chatur on June 21.

How long does your process take?: Delhi HC slams Twitter for delay in key appointments

The Indian government has told Delhi High Court that Twitter has failed to comply with the country's new IT rules. The center in an affidavit filed said that any non-compliance amounts to a breach of provisions to IT rules leading to Twitter losing its immunity confirmed under the IT act.

Indian govt to Delhi High Court: Twitter fails to comply with IT rules

Love for Bollywood and its star often make fans do unusual things. On Wednesday as a bench of Delhi Court was hearing actress Juhi Chawla's plea against setting up of 5G wireless network in the country, an anoymous fan of the actress started crooning hit songs from the actress's films. The hearing took place &nbsp;virtually.&nbsp; 
 
The anonymous visitor reportedly kept asking "Where is Juhi mam. I can`t see Juhi mam." 
 
When Chawla joined the hearing through video conferencing and became visible, the visitor started singing some hit songs that featured her.&nbsp; 
 
The situation became evidently awkward and Justice JR Midha, who was hearing the matter, asked the court staff to mute the concerned person.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/indian-actress-juhi-chawla-moves-delhi-high-court-on-5g-technology-388690">Indian actress Juhi Chawla moves Delhi High Court on 5G technology</a> 
 
At this juncture, the counsel representing Chawla said, "I hope these are not distractions from the defendants." 
 
However, the visitor did not stop, forcing the bench to ask the court master to lock the meeting.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH Video of Guy singing "Meri Banmo Ki aayegi Baraat" 😂😂 during Delhi High Court Hearing on Juhi Chawla 5G petition 😂😂😂 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JuhiChawla?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JuhiChawla</a> <a href="https://t.co/0GAy2aO1mU">pic.twitter.com/0GAy2aO1mU</a>
— Rosy (@rose_k01) <a href="https://twitter.com/rose_k01/status/1400093871929925639?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The hearing in the matter continued, but after some time the person interrupted again. The incident reportedly happened thrice during the hearing. 
 
Directing contempt of court action, Justice Midha said, "Please identify and issue contempt notice. Contact Delhi Police IT Department. We will issue notice." 
 
Meanwhile, the high court questioned Chawla for directly filing a suit against setting up of 5G wireless network without giving any representation to the government.

The court insisted that the plaintiffs, Chawla and two others, should have gone to the government first before approaching the court. After hearing the arguments in the matter, the court reserved its order.

The plea filed by Chawla, Veeresh Malik and Teena Vachani claims that the 5G wireless technology can be a potential threat to provoke irreversible and serious effects on humans and it could also permanently damage the earth`s ecosystems.

The plea contended that the levels of RF radiation are 10x to 100x times greater than the existing levels.

(With inputs from agencies)

Love for Bollywood and its star often make fans do unusual things. On Wednesday as a bench of Delhi Court was hearing actress Juhi Chawla's plea against setting up of 5G wireless network in the country, an anoymous fan of the actress started crooning hit songs from the actress's films.

Love for Bollywood and its star often make fans do unusual things. On Wednesday as a bench of Delhi Court was hearing actress Juhi Chawla's plea against setting up of 5G wireless network in the country, an anoymous fan of the actress started crooning hit songs from the actress's films. The hearing took place virtually. The anonymous visitor reportedly kept asking "Where is Juhi mam. I can`t see Juhi mam." When Chawla joined the hearing through video conferencing and became visible, the visitor started singing some hit songs that featured her. The situation became evidently awkward and Justice JR Midha, who was hearing the matter, asked the court staff to mute the concerned person. Indian actress Juhi Chawla moves Delhi High Court on 5G technology At this juncture, the counsel representing Chawla said, "I hope these are not distractions from the defendants." However, the visitor did not stop, forcing the bench to ask the court master to lock the meeting. WATCH Video of Guy singing "Meri Banmo Ki aayegi Baraat" 😂😂 during Delhi High Court Hearing on Juhi Chawla 5G petition 😂😂😂 #JuhiChawla pic.twitter.com/0GAy2aO1mU — Rosy (@rose_k01) June 2, 2021 × The hearing in the matter continued, but after some time the person interrupted again. The incident reportedly happened thrice during the hearing. Directing contempt of court action, Justice Midha said, "Please identify and issue contempt notice. Contact Delhi Police IT Department. We will issue notice." Meanwhile, the high court questioned Chawla for directly filing a suit against setting up of 5G wireless network without giving any representation to the government. The court insisted that the plaintiffs, Chawla and two others, should have gone to the government first before approaching the court. After hearing the arguments in the matter, the court reserved its order. The plea filed by Chawla, Veeresh Malik and Teena Vachani claims that the 5G wireless technology can be a potential threat to provoke irreversible and serious effects on humans and it could also permanently damage the earth`s ecosystems. The plea contended that the levels of RF radiation are 10x to 100x times greater than the existing levels. (With inputs from agencies)

Juhi Chawla's fan croons her hit songs during 5G plea hearing, court not impressed

WhatsApp is taking the Indian government to court. The company claims the new media code will compel it to "break privacy protections". India says the right to privacy is "fundamental, but not absolute". Palki Sharma tells you why the world is watching this lawsuit.

Gravitas: Why WhatsApp has sued the Indian government

WhatsApp has filed a legal complaint in Delhi High Court against the Indian government seeking to block regulations coming into force on Wednesday that experts say would compel the California-based Facebook unit to break privacy protections.

WhatsApp challenges Indian government's new it rules in Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court directed the Centre government to show cause why contempt not be initiated against it for failing to comply with order on supply of oxygen to the state for treating COVID-19 patients.

Delhi High Court asks Centre why it should not face contempt for failing to supply oxygen

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice in the petitions of WhatsApp and Facebook challenging the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order for an investigation into the messaging app's new privacy policy.

The Division Bench of Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh sought the response of all respondents and slated the matter for May 21.

The Single Bench Justice Navin Chawla on April 22 had dismissed Facebook and WhatsApp pleas challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order for an investigation into the messaging app's new privacy policy.

The petitioners have challenged the March 24 order passed by CCI directing a probe into the new privacy policy and the probe should be completed within 60 days.

Facebook and WhatsApp, said that since the issue of WhatsApp's privacy policy is being heard by the Supreme Court and High Court, therefore there was no requirement of CCI to order the probe.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioners and told the court that CCI proceedings must be kept in abeyance as the matter is pending before Supreme Court, High Court, etc.

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, who represented CCI in the matter, had earlier told the court that the matter is not of privacy but access to data and the Competition is going to deal with metadata.

ASG Lekhi responded that data can have a privacy or competition dimension. He also said that the issue is completely competition-based as understanding consumer behaviour and preferences facilitate targeted advertising.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice in the petitions of WhatsApp and Facebook challenging the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order for an investigation into the messaging app's new privacy policy.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice in the petitions of WhatsApp and Facebook challenging the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order for an investigation into the messaging app's new privacy policy. The Division Bench of Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh sought the response of all respondents and slated the matter for May 21. The Single Bench Justice Navin Chawla on April 22 had dismissed Facebook and WhatsApp pleas challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order for an investigation into the messaging app's new privacy policy. The petitioners have challenged the March 24 order passed by CCI directing a probe into the new privacy policy and the probe should be completed within 60 days. Facebook and WhatsApp, said that since the issue of WhatsApp's privacy policy is being heard by the Supreme Court and High Court, therefore there was no requirement of CCI to order the probe. Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioners and told the court that CCI proceedings must be kept in abeyance as the matter is pending before Supreme Court, High Court, etc. Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, who represented CCI in the matter, had earlier told the court that the matter is not of privacy but access to data and the Competition is going to deal with metadata. ASG Lekhi responded that data can have a privacy or competition dimension. He also said that the issue is completely competition-based as understanding consumer behaviour and preferences facilitate targeted advertising.

Delhi HC issues notice on Facebook, WhatsApp pleas challenging order on new privacy policy

Former Flight Lieutenant Gunjan Saxena&nbsp; on Thursday submitted an affidavit to the Delhi High Court stating that she had noty faced any discrimination on the basis of her gender in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and called it a progressive institution. 
 
She maintained that IAF gave her an opportunity to serve the nation, including in the Kargil War and she will forever remain grateful for the opportunities given to her by the force. 
 
Saxena made the submissions in her affidavit in a suit filed by the Centre seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Netflix, Dharma Productions and others from broadcasting or releasing in theatres or any other digital platform the film 'Gunjan Saxena - The Kargil Girl', without grant of no-objection certificate (NOC) from it. 
 
According to the Centre, the film which was streaming on Netflix, depicts the IAF in poor light and dents its image as it shows that the force is gender biased, which is not correct. 
 
The court, however, refused to pass any interim order over the plea filed by the Central government and said that those who wanted to watch the movie, might already have seen it on the OTT platform. 
 
"Who will go and watch the film in theatres during the Covid-19 pandemic and the ones who wanted to, have already seen it on OTT platform," the judge said.

Saxena, in her affidavit filed before Justice Rajiv Shakdher, clarified that the movie is not a documentary but is only inspired by her life and it is clear from the two disclaimers placed at the beginning of the film which gives a message to motivate young women to join IAF. 
 
The retired officer said she has utmost respect for IAF and cannot comment on the Centre of the force's perception about the movie in question as everybody's perception is different. 
 
The high court had earlier issued notices and sought response of Dharma Productions Private Limited, which produced the film, along with Zee Entertainment, director of the movie Sharan Sharma, Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, M/s Netflix and Gunjan Saxena on the Centre's suit to remove the movie from all OTT platforms. 
 
The film 'Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl' had Janhvi Kapoor playing the lead role with Pankaj Tripathi playing her army officer father. The film showed how Gunjan rose up the ranks despite facing gender discrimination at her initial days at IAF.

Former Flight Lieutenant Gunjan Saxena on Thursday submitted an affidavit to the Delhi High Court stating that she had noty faced any discrimination on the basis of her gender in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and called it a progressive institution.

Former Flight Lieutenant Gunjan Saxena on Thursday submitted an affidavit to the Delhi High Court stating that she had noty faced any discrimination on the basis of her gender in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and called it a progressive institution. She maintained that IAF gave her an opportunity to serve the nation, including in the Kargil War and she will forever remain grateful for the opportunities given to her by the force. Saxena made the submissions in her affidavit in a suit filed by the Centre seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Netflix, Dharma Productions and others from broadcasting or releasing in theatres or any other digital platform the film 'Gunjan Saxena - The Kargil Girl', without grant of no-objection certificate (NOC) from it. According to the Centre, the film which was streaming on Netflix, depicts the IAF in poor light and dents its image as it shows that the force is gender biased, which is not correct. The court, however, refused to pass any interim order over the plea filed by the Central government and said that those who wanted to watch the movie, might already have seen it on the OTT platform. "Who will go and watch the film in theatres during the Covid-19 pandemic and the ones who wanted to, have already seen it on OTT platform," the judge said. Saxena, in her affidavit filed before Justice Rajiv Shakdher, clarified that the movie is not a documentary but is only inspired by her life and it is clear from the two disclaimers placed at the beginning of the film which gives a message to motivate young women to join IAF. The retired officer said she has utmost respect for IAF and cannot comment on the Centre of the force's perception about the movie in question as everybody's perception is different. The high court had earlier issued notices and sought response of Dharma Productions Private Limited, which produced the film, along with Zee Entertainment, director of the movie Sharan Sharma, Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, M/s Netflix and Gunjan Saxena on the Centre's suit to remove the movie from all OTT platforms. The film 'Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl' had Janhvi Kapoor playing the lead role with Pankaj Tripathi playing her army officer father. The film showed how Gunjan rose up the ranks despite facing gender discrimination at her initial days at IAF.

Gunjan Saxena to Delhi HC: Never faced gender based discrimination in IAF

The Delhi High Court Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the CBI and the ED to take action against Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Milind Deora and Yes bank co-founder Rana Kapoor for alleged cheating and fraud.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the petition filed by an NGO alleging that Vadra sold a painting of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to Kapoor for Rs 2 crore even though it was the property of the Congress party.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-national-digital-health-mission-and-health-id-card-will-benefit-people-everything-you-want-to-know-321133">How National Digital Health Mission and Health ID card will benefit people: Everything you want to know</a>

The plea alleged that Deora had pressurised Kapoor, who is lodged in jail in another fraud case, to buy the painting.

"This court does not consider it apposite to entertain the writ petition,"&nbsp;the judge said.

Regarding the plea to direct the investigative agencies to take action, the high court said the concerned trial court, where an FIR is already pending against Kapoor in the Yes Bank scam, will have the jurisdiction to direct the probe and the NGO should approach the lower court.

So far as the plea for lodging FIR against Vadra and Deora is concerned, the NGO has an alternate remedy of filing complaint under section 156(3) of CrPC before the trial court, it said.

"The Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that it is necessary for a complainant to exhaust all the remedies available to it before approaching the high court. Hence the present petition is dismissed,"&nbsp;Justice Bakhru said.

The petitioner NGO, Akhil Bhartiya Shanti Pratishthan, through advocate Rajeev Lochan, sought lodging of FIR against the two Congress leaders and Kapoor for alleged money laundering, cheating, extortion, fraud, and misrepresentation.

The plea alleged that Vadra, in connivance with Deora as partner conspirator, and Kapoor in a pre-planned manner performed an illegal act of money laundering with the intention of cheating and forgery.

It also claimed that this was done and executed in a pre-planned manner for generating black money under the garb of sale of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's painting made by legendary painter late MF Hussain.

It alleged that Kapoor was part and parcel of the entire illegal execution for grabbing crores of rupees of public property under his power and authority which was done for generating black money via public property for Vadra. 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the CBI and the ED to take action against Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Milind Deora and Yes bank co-founder Rana Kapoor for alleged cheating and fraud.

The Delhi High Court Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the CBI and the ED to take action against Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Milind Deora and Yes bank co-founder Rana Kapoor for alleged cheating and fraud. Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the petition filed by an NGO alleging that Vadra sold a painting of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to Kapoor for Rs 2 crore even though it was the property of the Congress party. Also read | How National Digital Health Mission and Health ID card will benefit people: Everything you want to know The plea alleged that Deora had pressurised Kapoor, who is lodged in jail in another fraud case, to buy the painting. "This court does not consider it apposite to entertain the writ petition," the judge said. Regarding the plea to direct the investigative agencies to take action, the high court said the concerned trial court, where an FIR is already pending against Kapoor in the Yes Bank scam, will have the jurisdiction to direct the probe and the NGO should approach the lower court. So far as the plea for lodging FIR against Vadra and Deora is concerned, the NGO has an alternate remedy of filing complaint under section 156(3) of CrPC before the trial court, it said. "The Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that it is necessary for a complainant to exhaust all the remedies available to it before approaching the high court. Hence the present petition is dismissed," Justice Bakhru said. The petitioner NGO, Akhil Bhartiya Shanti Pratishthan, through advocate Rajeev Lochan, sought lodging of FIR against the two Congress leaders and Kapoor for alleged money laundering, cheating, extortion, fraud, and misrepresentation. The plea alleged that Vadra, in connivance with Deora as partner conspirator, and Kapoor in a pre-planned manner performed an illegal act of money laundering with the intention of cheating and forgery. It also claimed that this was done and executed in a pre-planned manner for generating black money under the garb of sale of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's painting made by legendary painter late MF Hussain. It alleged that Kapoor was part and parcel of the entire illegal execution for grabbing crores of rupees of public property under his power and authority which was done for generating black money via public property for Vadra.

HC dismisses plea for CBI, ED probe against Priyanka Gandhi, Milind Deora, Rana Kapoor

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-are-shifting-from-burden-of-school-bag-to-boon-of-learning-pm-modi-317503">Also read|&nbsp;We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi</a>

"This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments.

The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee.

According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/from-4-years-bed-degree-to-removing-mphil-highlights-of-national-education-policy-2020-316865">Also read|&nbsp;From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020</a>

The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes.

"The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said.

"The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added.

The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system.

"Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown. A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court. Also read| We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi "This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments. The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee. According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus. Also read| From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020 The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes. "The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said. "The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added. The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system. "Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

COVID-19: Delhi HC refuses to entertain PIL seeking directions to waive off school tuition fee

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the interim bail of 2,961 undertrial prisoners by 45 days to de-congest jails during the coronavirus pandemic.

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh passed the order in view of a high-power committee's recommendation that it would be dangerous to send the prisoners back to jail as the risk still remains high.

The court said the interim bail of these undertrials is extended by 45 days from the date of expiry of the relief on the same terms and conditions and listed the matter for further hearing on August 4.

The committee, headed by Justice Hima Kohli, in its June 20 meeting said since there was no certainty when the threat of pandemic shall be over and requirement of social distancing no longer necessary, the interim bail of under-trial prisoners (UTPs) needs to be extended for a further period of 45 days from the date their respective interim bail is expiring.

During the hearing, Delhi government standing Counsel Rahul Mehra and advocate Chaitanya Gosain, appearing for the prison authorities, said they have no objection to the extension of bail.

"Accordingly, it is ordered that the interim bails for a period of 45 days granted to 2,961 UTPs, in view of the recommendations of HPC are hereby extended by another period of 45 days from the date of their respective expiry of interim bails on the same terms and conditions," the bench said.

It also directed the Director General (Prisons) to ensure that the order was conveyed to all 2,961 under-trial prisoners (UTPs) by telephone and other available modes.

During the hearing,Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) member secretary Kanwal Jeet Arora submitted that the situation was the same and it was not possible to take the undertrials back in jail at this time and urged the court to further extend the relief period.

Director General (Prisons) Sandeep Goel said before the process of de-congesting jails began, there were 18,000 inmates in jail against the holding capacity of 10,000.

After decongestion, though the jails population is still more than the holding capacity but it has reduced to 13,677 which is a great relief.

The committee, which was formed on the order of the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines to decongest jails and prevent the spread of the coronavirus, was also of the view that moving a separate application on behalf of each of the 2,961 UTPs would be "cumbersome" and lead to wastage of judicial time.

Therefore, it had recommended that the high court be requested to pass a judicial order to extend the interim bail of the prisoners by 45 days.

The matter was placed before Chief Justice D N Patel, who on May 7 issued verbal directions to set up the bench on Saturday, May 9.

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the interim bail of 2,961 undertrial prisoners by 45 days to de-congest jails during the coronavirus pandemic. A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh passed the order in view of a high-power committee's recommendation that it would be dangerous to send the prisoners back to jail as the risk still remains high.

The Delhi High Court on Monday extended the interim bail of 2,961 undertrial prisoners by 45 days to de-congest jails during the coronavirus pandemic. A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh passed the order in view of a high-power committee's recommendation that it would be dangerous to send the prisoners back to jail as the risk still remains high. The court said the interim bail of these undertrials is extended by 45 days from the date of expiry of the relief on the same terms and conditions and listed the matter for further hearing on August 4. The committee, headed by Justice Hima Kohli, in its June 20 meeting said since there was no certainty when the threat of pandemic shall be over and requirement of social distancing no longer necessary, the interim bail of under-trial prisoners (UTPs) needs to be extended for a further period of 45 days from the date their respective interim bail is expiring. During the hearing, Delhi government standing Counsel Rahul Mehra and advocate Chaitanya Gosain, appearing for the prison authorities, said they have no objection to the extension of bail. "Accordingly, it is ordered that the interim bails for a period of 45 days granted to 2,961 UTPs, in view of the recommendations of HPC are hereby extended by another period of 45 days from the date of their respective expiry of interim bails on the same terms and conditions," the bench said. It also directed the Director General (Prisons) to ensure that the order was conveyed to all 2,961 under-trial prisoners (UTPs) by telephone and other available modes. During the hearing,Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) member secretary Kanwal Jeet Arora submitted that the situation was the same and it was not possible to take the undertrials back in jail at this time and urged the court to further extend the relief period. Director General (Prisons) Sandeep Goel said before the process of de-congesting jails began, there were 18,000 inmates in jail against the holding capacity of 10,000. After decongestion, though the jails population is still more than the holding capacity but it has reduced to 13,677 which is a great relief. The committee, which was formed on the order of the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines to decongest jails and prevent the spread of the coronavirus, was also of the view that moving a separate application on behalf of each of the 2,961 UTPs would be "cumbersome" and lead to wastage of judicial time. Therefore, it had recommended that the high court be requested to pass a judicial order to extend the interim bail of the prisoners by 45 days. The matter was placed before Chief Justice D N Patel, who on May 7 issued verbal directions to set up the bench on Saturday, May 9.

COVID-19: Delhi High Court extends by 45 days interim bail of 2,961 under-trial prisoners to de-congest jails

With several inmates and staff at prisons in the city testing positive for COVID-19, a high-powered committee headed by a Delhi High Court judge has issued several directions, like creating isolation wards and carrying out rapid tests, to prevent further spread of the virus among prisoners.

With several inmates and staff at prisons in the city testing positive for COVID-19, a high-powered committee headed by a Delhi High Court judge has issued several directions, like creating isolation wards and carrying out rapid tests, to prevent further spread of the virus among prisoners. The high powered committee (HPC), headed by Justice Hima Kohli, also directed prison authorities to take extra precautions with regard to inmates over 55 years of age after a 62-year-old prisoner, who died in his sleep, was later found to be COVID positive. The committee further said that new prisoners between ages 18 and 21 be kept in isolation wards and also asked the DG Prisons and Special Secretary (Home) of the Delhi government to make efforts to get the 360 vacant police quarters adjacent to Mandoli jail here for use as a temporary jail to create isolation ward for new prisoners and COVID positive cases. To prevent new prisoners from spreading the virus among the inmates, the HPC was of the opinion that rapid tests needed to be conducted on every new entrant and it directed accordingly. The committee, in its meeting held on June 20, further resolved that all jail hospitals must be equipped with 'oxygen concentration machines' and two such machines for each of the two jail hospitals must be procured at the earliest. To prevent spread of COVID-19 among inmates through jail staff, the committee resolved that rapid testing of the staff be carried out as per guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). "This is to ensure that the suspected cases of corona positive jail staff could be prevented from getting in touch with jail inmates," according to the minutes of the meeting. With regard to decongesting jails by granting interim bails and parole, the committee was informed that total 4,129 undertrials and convicted prisoners have been released till June 20. After taking note of the figures, the committee said since there was no certainty when the threat of pandemic shall be over and requirement of social distancing no longer necessary, the interim bail of under-trial prisoners (UTPs) needs to be extended for a further period of 45 days from their respective date of expiry of the relief. The committee said a judicial order from Delhi HC was required in this regard and recommended accordingly. It directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to place the recommendation before the Delhi HC for necessary action. With regard to extension of eight weeks emergency parole granted to prisoners, the Delhi government informed the committee that a decision has been taken on May 22 to further extend it by another eight weeks.

Create isolation wards, conduct rapid tests to curb spread of COVID-19 in jails: Committee

The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Centre on a plea seeking action and suspension of operations of the Google India Digital Service in UPI through its application 'Google Pay' till it fully complies with interoperability.

Justice Asha Menon, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, issued notices to the RBI, the Centre and Google India Digital Service Pvt Ltd and granted them three weeks to file their responses.

The petitioner approached the high court after Google Pay did not allow him to contribute to the PM CARES Fund, without making another VPA or UPI ID on its app.

Petitioner Shubham Kapaley tried to use his already existing VPA/ UPI ID for other transactions as well, however, the same issue of denial of interoperability persisted.

The petition alleged that Google India's app 'Google Pay' was flouting the rules of Unified Payments Interface (UPI) interoperability and that it does not allow new users to use their existing Virtual Payment Address (VPAs) or UPI ID on its platform, which the consumer might have created through other UPI platforms or apps.

As per an earlier NPCI circular, no merchant can/ shall force the customer to create a VPA or register for UPI to avail any services on a merchant app.

The plea claimed that Google Pay insists consumers to create a new UPI ID or VPA to use its platform and sought initiation of action against Google India Digital which is provisioning its services by way of this app in the country.

It sought to direct RBI and Centre to conduct a thorough third party and independent investigation of the app to check compliance of every directive and guidelines issued by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), which operates various digital payment instruments including UPI, and RBI.

The plea said that a hefty penalty of at least 10 times revenue of Google Pay, since the start of its operations in India, be imposed and be contributed towards Covid-19 Relief Fund here.

The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Centre on a plea seeking action and suspension of operations of the Google India Digital Service in UPI through its application 'Google Pay' till it fully complies with interoperability.

The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Centre on a plea seeking action and suspension of operations of the Google India Digital Service in UPI through its application 'Google Pay' till it fully complies with interoperability. Justice Asha Menon, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, issued notices to the RBI, the Centre and Google India Digital Service Pvt Ltd and granted them three weeks to file their responses. The petitioner approached the high court after Google Pay did not allow him to contribute to the PM CARES Fund, without making another VPA or UPI ID on its app. Petitioner Shubham Kapaley tried to use his already existing VPA/ UPI ID for other transactions as well, however, the same issue of denial of interoperability persisted. The petition alleged that Google India's app 'Google Pay' was flouting the rules of Unified Payments Interface (UPI) interoperability and that it does not allow new users to use their existing Virtual Payment Address (VPAs) or UPI ID on its platform, which the consumer might have created through other UPI platforms or apps. As per an earlier NPCI circular, no merchant can/ shall force the customer to create a VPA or register for UPI to avail any services on a merchant app. The plea claimed that Google Pay insists consumers to create a new UPI ID or VPA to use its platform and sought initiation of action against Google India Digital which is provisioning its services by way of this app in the country. It sought to direct RBI and Centre to conduct a thorough third party and independent investigation of the app to check compliance of every directive and guidelines issued by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), which operates various digital payment instruments including UPI, and RBI. The plea said that a hefty penalty of at least 10 times revenue of Google Pay, since the start of its operations in India, be imposed and be contributed towards Covid-19 Relief Fund here.

Delhi High Court asks RBI, Centre to respond to plea for action against Google Pay for flouting UPI rules

delhi-high-court

Delhi High Court, News on Delhi High Court, stories on Delhi High Court, articles on Delhi High Court, Delhi High Court stories at Wion, Delhi High Court news, Delhi High Court latest news

delhi high-court