In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
SFIO has also been ordered scrutiny of balance-sheets of around 80 companies to ascertain whether these MLM operators have violated the provisions of the Companies Act
The PIL filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge, Justice KS Puttaswamy and advocate Parvesh Khanna questioned the government's decision of issuing Aadhaar numbers to citizens while the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 is pending before the Rajya Sabha
The apex court asked state governments of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi and Puducherry to file their response within four weeks
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Maharashtra government to explain the circumstances under which its police arrested two girls from Palghar in Thane district for posting comments on Facebook on the 18th November shutdown for Shiv Sena leader Balasaheb Thackeray's funeral, reports PTI.
"The Maharashtra government is directed to explain the circumstances under which the two girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan - were arrested for posting comments made by them on Facebook," a bench comprising Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J Chelameswar said.
The bench asked the state government to file its response within four weeks on the public interest litigation filed by a Delhi student, Shreya Singhal.
The bench also made as parties the governments of West Bengal and Puducherry where similar incidents had happened in the recent past.
It also issued notice to the Delhi government along with them and sought their response within four weeks and posted the matter for hearing after six weeks.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati, whose assistance was sought by the court, said, "Please examine section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and I will assist the court on this issue."
The AG also referred to the guidelines which say that cases to be registered under the provision of the IT Act has to be decided by senior police officials of the ranks of DGP (Director General of Police) for cases pertaining to rural areas and IGP (inspector-general of police) for metros.
"This can't be done by the head of the police stations," the AG said, adding that this was a matter which required the court's consideration.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Shreya, sought a direction from the apex court that no cases be registered across the country unless such complaints are seen and approved by the DGP of the state concerned.
During the hearing, the Attorney General said that the arrest of the two Palghar-based girls was unjustified but it does not mean that section 66A should be done away with as the provision was well intended.
Rohatgi said that the provision of the IT Act, which gives power to arrest, is "wholly unconstitutional" and needed to be done away with.
"The provision is unconstitutional. Of course, it would be decided by the Supreme Court," he said, adding that a direction to all the states was required that no case be registered under this provision unless the complaint is seen and approved by the DGP concerned of the state as "the law and order is a state subject and unless there is some kind of order from this court, this (abuse of the provision) may not stop."
There are thousands of police stations in the country and, hence an order from this court is needed, Rohatgi said, to which the bench said that all police stations are not alike.
Meanwhile, some other civil rights group and NGOs submitted to the court that they be also allowed to intervene as parties to the ongoing hearing on this issue.
"Not only one section, there are other provisions of the Act and the rules which are unconstitutional," Prashant Bhushan said, while seeking to intervene as a party.
Rohatgi said, "I have no objection if a person is allowed to intervene..."
On Thursday, while agreeing to hear the public-interest litigation (PIL) seeking amendments to the IT Act, the bench had said, "The way the little children were arrested, it outraged the sentiments of the people of the country. The way these things had been taking place needs consideration."
The petitioner, Shreya, in her plea, has contended that "the phraseology of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution."