co-presented by
ASSOCIATE SPONSORS
co-presented by
ASSOCIATE SPONSORS
According to the defence, the alleged incident occurred in December 2025, while the FIR was lodged nearly six weeks later, after video clips of the car’s movement through city traffic began circulating widely online.
The court was clear that a person who is not part of the husband’s family does not come within the scope of the provision and, therefore, cannot be made to face trial under it.
These figures form part of the company’s challenge to the High Court’s September 24 judgment that endorsed the Central government’s Sahyog portal -- an online interface for issuing takedown directions to intermediaries such as X.
Justice M Nagaprasanna says freedom of speech is subject to reasonable limits; social media cannot be left “anarchic.”
R Ashoka went on to taunt Gandhi directly: “Will @RahulGandhi now come to Karnataka and launch his ‘Vote Chori Yatra’ against his own MLA?”
Head Digital Works, which operates the online rummy platform A23 Rummy, had approached the Karnataka High Court on April 28, challenging the constitutional validity of the government's new online gaming law.
The case pertains to allegations that the petitioner, a neighbour of the complainant, sexually assaulted a 13-year-old boy in May 2020.
The court pointed out that the club's entire existence is tied to the land granted in 1913, with all its facilities and benefits accessible only through physical presence on the premises.
Tushar Mehta called it a live illustration of social media risks; X Corp objected to the surprise example, then removed the account.
The move comes even as X Corp challenges the portal’s legality in the Karnataka High Court.
The court stayed an order making Union Minister and JDS leader H D Kumaraswamy a party to the ongoing contempt proceedings over the alleged large-scale land encroachment in a Karnataka village.
X Corp told the Karnataka HC that India’s IT rules give sweeping powers to non-judicial officers to determine what speech is illegal, bypassing courts and violating constitutional protections.
Social media platform X argued before the Karnataka High Court that nodal officers across the country are independently deciding what content should be taken down, with no consistency or central oversight.
Digipub News India Foundation has sought to intervene in the ongoing Karnataka High Court case between the Union government and X (formerly Twitter), flagging broader concerns over online censorship and lack of due process.
The High Court order to ban bike taxi services in Karnataka is likely to be a blow for aggregators like Rapido, Ola, and Uber, as Bengaluru is one of the largest bike taxi markets.
The original complaint alleged that Daisy went missing after jumping between neighbouring walls and was subsequently seen in the accused's house via CCTV footage.
RCB and DNA Entertainment on Monday filed separate petitions challenging FIRs against them
Invoking Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the court held that its order is sufficient for the government to act.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, said that all intermediaries operating in India must follow local regulations
In its petition, X Corp said that the government is misinterpreting Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders that do not adhere to the procedures prescribed under Section 69A
The petitioners had argued that the "manufactured judgments" were the sole basis and reasoning given by the trial court for rejecting the plea of the defendants.
X Corp, in the petition, argues that authorities are invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a means to impose content takedowns while sidestepping the procedural requirements set forth in Section 69A.
There should be a conscious effort to frame them in short, clear sentences,” the court said
The accused faced charges under IPC Section 295A for allegedly outraging religious feelings, as well as under Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 505 (public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention).
No one can call any part of territory of India as Pakistan. It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down, says CJI
