Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madras High Court: G. Ilangovan, J., expressed that a cartoonist is also bound by the law and he cannot defame anyone. Accused,
Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., reiterated that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend a criminal complaint,
“…leaders of political parties should show their statesmanship and quality and healthy politics rather than accusing others by using vituperated language in political platform.”
Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., while addressing a matter wherein the offence of defamation has been alleged, expressed: Simply using another’s
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., quashed a complaint about defamation filed by a lawyer against Business Standard. It was held
“Sometimes the victim of sexual abuse herself does not understand what is happening to them or what is happening to them is wrong.”
by Achal Gupta†
Jharkhand High Court: Ananda Sen, J., while addressing the instant matter with regard to the application of Section 228A of Penal Code,
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the true test of a valid FIR is only whether
“In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sanjay Kumar, J., quashed the proceedings under Section 499 IPC against the petitioner holding that the complainant was
Kerala High Court: P. Somarajan, J., observed that, “…fourth estate is not expected to shy away from the matters governing public importance, but
London High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench): The instant high profile case of libel brought in by well known American actor Johnny
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., allowed the injunction application filed by the TV Today Network finding they have established prima facie case
Madras High Court: R. Subramanian, J., refused to allow the application filed by Sathiyam Media praying for rejection of plaint filed by
Karnataka High Court: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J., while allowing the criminal revision in part, remarked that, if the accused seeks to take
Madras High Court: G.K. Ilathiraiyan, J., observed that, Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 cannot be attracted wherein an advocate acts professionally
Calcutta High Court: Debangsu Basak, J., while addressing a matter with regard to defamation, observed that “in a civil action for defamation, the
Madras High Court: While answering important questions related to freedom of press; meaning of criminal defamation against the State and requisites of
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ., while rejecting the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami’s