SC had observed it would form a committee leading to formation of standards for electronic media. It had also said that one "cannot say that Muslims are infiltrating the civil services." The channel was injuncted from airing any more episodes till further orders.
Centre in its reply has informed SC that it should first regulate digital media as it has a wider reach. Next ir contends that SC should not lay down standards without an amicus or committee of amicus since its one show or a few episodes. @MIB_India
News Broadcasters Association, on the other hand says their regulations are referred to by various HCs and that they have rules and an authority in place to recieve complaints against electronic media, impose cost on them or even refer them to @MIB_India for license revocation
Divan: Very difficult to prepare the reply in such a short span of time. I understand what other side is saying as I was in the same position last time and was ambushed by the IA
Divan: I have also recieved the other affidavits just now. You all will sit on Monday and can be taken up then or take it up tomorrow. I have a court commitment from Mon which will take time
SG Mehta: Since Mr Divan has a professional difficulty on Monday, we can have the hearing tomorrow.
Justice Chandrachud: We can ask CJI to constitute a bench tomorrow for this case and we can have the hearing tomorrow at 10.30 am and finish it off
Senior Adv Anoop Chaudhari: we cannot be expected to file a reply by tomorrow
Justice Chandrachud: How long is the affidavit by @SudarshanNewsTV ?
Chaudhari: 92 pages!
Justice Chandrachud: Mr Divan has submitted his unavailability from Monday. All counsels have agreed for a hearing tomorrow. We will urge the CJI to constitute a bench tomorrow at 10.30 am
SG Mehta: Please keep it at 12 pm
Justice Chandrachud: We will start at 12 and finish it at 1.30 pm tomorrow
Counsel for Press Council of India: Please allow me to make submissions after Mr Divan
Justice KM Joseph: Who is your client, Mr Divan? A Cable TV operator or a broadcaster? Rule 6 applies to the cable TV network operators.
Senior Adv Preetesh Kapur for PCI: Yes that is why electronic media is on a different footing as they use public property like air waves
Senior Adv Divan: I had given an assurance that links or pendrives are given to the court Master. It was not given, I will ensure you have the links atleast today via the court master
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.