Based on the observation of any sexual activity with a mentally ill woman who is incapable of understanding the nature of the act amounts to rape.

A Sessions Court found a 24-year-old man guilty and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for having an affair with a 23-year-old mentally challenged woman who lived in his neighbourhood.

The woman’s mental age, according to the prosecution, was that of a 9-year-old girl. The woman who conceived post the sexual act, It was discovered that the accused and the survivor were the foetus’s biological parents.

The woman’s mental impairment was slight was argued as a defence.

By taking advantage of the victim’s helplessness, the accused had committed rape. A person with a mental illness or condition is deserving of extra attention, care, and devotion observed the court.

The Judge took note of the survivor’s admission during the defence attorney’s cross-examination that she knew the accused and had a consensual connection with him.

She said that because of their differing religious views, her parents had stopped her from marrying the accused. The victim acknowledged that she hadn’t told the accused that she was pregnant and had not first given the police his name.

The survivor restated that her parents had pushed her to submit a formal complaint even though she had no grievances against the accused. Based on this, the accused claimed that the connection was consenting.

The Judge, however, rejected the defence, stating that the prosecution had demonstrated the survivor’s moderate mental impairment in this instance.

According to the Judge, it has also been ruled by the SC that a girl with mental disabilities is unable to grant permission/consent, which would require her to grasp the consequences of her actions.

The Court confirmed the constitutional validity of J&K’s abrogation of Article 370 last December. But recently, the Supreme Court will examine the legality of the Union Government’s 2019 decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status.

Instructions Given by The Supreme Court

The Election Commission was instructed by the highest court to schedule elections in Kashmir by 30^th September 2024. 5^th August 2019, saw the Centre revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The court confirmed the constitutional validity of J&K’s abrogation of Article 370 law in December.

The Election Commission was instructed by the apex court to schedule elections in Kashmir by 30^th September 2024.

Announcing the rulings, the five-judge panel led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that the Supreme Court does not need to rule on the legality of proclamations because the primary issue is abrogation.

Even if it is determined that a proclamation could not be carried out, there is no evidence to suggest that the president’s rule cannot be invoked.

The court of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, BR Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, and Surya Kant, rendered the historic decision. Muzzafar Shah, the president of the J&K Awami National Conference, and Doctor Hussain, the president of the J&K People’s Movement, have submitted the review petitions.

Critical Evaluation by People Conference President

People Conference president Sajad Lone has stated that while it may have been a mistake to challenge the Supreme Court’s abrogation of Article 370, doing so would have worsened the political situation for the mainstream parties refrained from pursuing legal action, the Centre could have supported anyone to bring the matter to the highest court.

The licenses for 14 Patanjali products, owned by Baba Ram Dev, were immediately suspended by the Uttarakhand licensing department on Monday.

The Licensing authority stated in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court that, about the matter involving deceptive ads, it had suspended the licenses for 14 goods made by Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy.

The following products are prohibited:

• Mukta Vati Extra Power,
• Lipidom,
• BP Grit,
• Madhugrit,
• Madhunashini Vati Extra Power,
• Livamrit Advance,
• Livogrit,
• Eyegrit Gold,
• Bronchom,
• Swasari Gold,
• Swasari Vati,
• Mukta Pharmacy’s Drishti Eye drop.

On 30^th April, the Supreme Court will consider a case involving the apology that yoga teacher Ramdev and his associate, Acharya Balkrishna, published. On Tuesday, they will both be in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court chastised Patanjali during the most recent hearing on 23 April 2024, for failing to post their apology “prominently” in newspapers. `

The court had inquired as to whether Patanjali’s newspaper apology was comparable in scope to full-page product advertisements.

Patanjali had declared that it would not make the same mistakes twice and that it had the utmost respect for the court in an apology that was printed in 67 newspapers.

Following the ruling passed by the court’s ruling issued a larger apology in newspapers after the first one.

Before that, in response to advertising released by the company that made exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of its drugs, such as Coronil, during the epidemic, Ramdev and Balkrishna submitted an “unconditional and unqualified apology” to the Supreme Court.

In November 2023, during the hearing of a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) seeking action against Ramdev for criticising modern medicine, the top court ordered Patanjali to cease advertisements of its products that are claimed to treat ailments and disorders specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was questioned by the Supreme Court (SC) over the reason behind Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest shortly before the general elections, in the money laundering case.

In the Delhi liquor policy case, Arvind Kejriwal had contested his arrest. Justice Sanjeev clarified why the timing of the arrest was a matter of concern by instructing the ED to clarify if the agency can initiate criminal proceedings without first going through the legal process.

In response to that, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju stated that life and liberty are extremely essential in response to a question about the time of the arrest. This was posed by Justice Dipankar Datta, who was also part of the Bench.

According to Justice Khanna, no attachment action had been filed in this case as far. If one has, please demonstrate Kejriwal’s involvement. The Supreme Court (SC) observed that while the investigators in the case involving former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have stated they have uncovered evidence, no such evidence has been presented in Arvind Kejriwal’s case.

The SC ordered the ED to explain the lengthy delay between the start of the legal process and the arrest. The ED was subsequently given a Friday deadline by the Court to reply.

Following his detention on 21^st March, Arvind Kejriwal has chosen to serve as Chief Minister while detained and is being held in judicial custody in Tihar, Delhi. On 15^th April, the SC served notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a response to Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against his arrest.

The Delhi High Court (HC) affirmed Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest on 9^th April, stating that there was no illegality and that the ED had “little option” because he had ignored a summons and declined to cooperate with the inquiry.

Leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Atishi and Saurabh Bharadwaj, along with other top party comrades, oversee running the party’s election campaign. Sunita, the spouse of Arvind Kejriwal, has also aided in contacting her husband’s followers.

On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court (HC) dismissed a formal complaint filed by a wife against her former husband, concerning unnatural offenses, threats in 2016, and rape. The HC even quashed all other cases against the man, who was accused by his ex-wife.

While the Mazgaon Mumbai Magistrate was hosting the hearings, the FIR was filed at the Mumbai police station in Agripada.

The woman brought the above complaint with malicious intentions, and hence the court declared the complaint fabricated and dismissed the same. Advocate Subhash Jha, who was representing the accused, stated that the FIR was fabricated and was filed only out of bitterness and malice.

Advocate’s Evidence

Jha stated that the couple had six children and lived together for several years. So, the relationship between them appears to be voluntary and the commitment of grave offenses like rape was a made-up story by the ex-wife. This suo-moto rape offense was untrue.

He further stated that carrying out legal actions against the man would be a misuse and abuse of the judicial system. As per testimony presented in the court hearing, the couple married on 12^th May 1991, as per Islamic law.

Family’s Statements

After moving in with the man’s joint family, the woman gave birth to 6 children. But when their relationship soured, the lady complained that the man had engaged in unnatural habits and he forced her into sexual encounters without her consent.

She further stated that she was beaten and threatened when she protested against his actions. The lady also stated that even though they are married to each other, she was intimidated and assaulted, and repeatedly was a victim of unwanted sexual advances by the man. She has documented and presented evidence to support her statements.

Role of Family Members

The family members of the man got together to determine the reasons behind the allegations that the woman had declared. They said that she was unwilling to live with the man, and was having an extramarital affair with someone else during the family gathering.

When the man found out about her extramarital affair, he obtained phone recording software from her mobile phone to clarify his doubts. The man claimed that the woman had earlier engaged in “obscene conversations” with the person she was seeing outside of her marriage.

It is said that the woman admitted to the family members that she wanted to live with her boyfriend and was ready to leave her husband when he tried to confront her.

Judge’s observations

The Bench of Justices NR Borkar and PD Naik concluded after reviewing the case’s circumstances that the “factual matrix of this case would directly point out that the said complaint was filed by the woman out of malice.”

The Bench took note of the son and daughter’s recorded statements in the case. The Bench thus concluded that, after reviewing the woman’s adult children’s statements, it is evident that the intent of the woman is malicious.

Naming her ex-husband as a criminal and filing an FIR was the result of her malicious intentions and it was out of vendetta.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) dismissed a plea presented by Kalyani Singh, the primary accused in the Sukhmanpreet Singh murder case, requesting case diaries or the police filed kept by the Chandigarh Police during the initial investigation.

Facts of the Case:

Singh is the daughter of retired High Court Judge Justice Sabina and Sidhu was the grandson of the late Justice S S Sighu, who is a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC).

It stated that unlimited access to such data could endanger the informants’ security and discourage cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Singh is accused of killing Sippu Sindhu, a corporate lawyer and national shooter, whose bullet-riddled body was discovered in Chandigarh Park on 20^th September 2015.

Singh had gone to the HC to overturn the contested judgement, which was issued on 6^th April 2024, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special judge in Chandigarh. The order denied her request for crucial case resources and materials.

Facts Represented by The Public Prosecutor:

In the meantime, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Ravi Kamal Gupta, contended earlier in the HC hearing that Singh had already received all the materials “relied upon” by the prosecution.

In addition to a list of “unreliable documents” and all the documents that had been given to the deceased’s family. Gupta further added that neither the untraced report that the CBI filed nor the list of papers and articles that it relied upon in the chargesheet included the materials that Singh was seeking.

Judge’s Observations in the Court

In a detailed order posted on the court website on Tuesday, the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul stated that it is necessary to emphasize that the request for an unrestricted right to view case diary entries based solely on an unfolded fear that the mother or family of the dead has been granted such access by the court.

On the other hand, police in untenable and violate established legal precedents. Given such a wife, access would jeopardise the public interest, particularly in cases when the case diary contains sensitive information such as the identification details of the informants.

Sections of the Cr. P.C. Involved

The restriction described in Sub Section (3) of Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal systems and protect the public interest. According to Justice Kaul, who made this assertion after hearing the case facts.

It is well-established law that, certain documents are essential and have the potential to affect an accused person’s case, even when it was not cited by the prosecution.

The accused person’s case where the accused person may still have resources under Section 91 Cr. P.C. at the proper trial stage, which it goes without saying, must be determined by a court by law.

According to sources, Singh was taken into custody by the CBI on 15^th June 2022, following multiple rounds of questioning. In September 2022, the HC granted her bail after the CBI Chandigarh court rejected her bail request.

The Chandigarh Police initially investigated the Sippy Sidhu murder case after receiving a complaint against unidentified individuals under Section 302 (murder) and the Arms Act at the Sector 26 police station in Chandigarh. In April of 2016, the case was sent to the CBI.

Judge Kaul noted that the above-mentioned petition is currently “untenable” given the statutory disentitlement outlined in Section 172(3) of the CrPC.

In the matter of unauthorized appointments of 25,000 teachers, made by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in West Bengal, the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday, imposed a stay order on additional investigation into this matter.

There has been no stay of the order terminating 25,000 teachers who were hired without authorization. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) ordered this ruling, in which no coercive actions were implemented, signalling a temporary suspension of the investigation, that postpones further judicial review.

It was informed that the panel’s validity expired on 4^th May 2019, still, it was said that the Commission continued to illegally advise nominations from the panel.

Later, many candidates who had been on the panel were not appointed and filed a lawsuit. The petition claimed that the Commission had illegally recommended appointments from the panel, even when it had expired its tenure.

Relating to these controversial appointments of teachers, this step was taken by the SC, after CBI was asked by the Calcutta High Court to investigate Group-C and Group-D (non-teaching) appointment fraud in the state-run higher secondary and secondary schools.

The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) and the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) were supposed to provide an affidavit. This affidavit was asked to be present before the Chief Justice’s division bench.

After the submission of the affidavit to the division bench, CBI issued an order for a probe. CJI declared that the guilty parties must be identified and actions will be taken against them.

Subsequently, the court-mandated the formation of an investigating committee headed by a DIG rank officer. This committee will investigate the fraudulent appointment of at least 25 Group-D employees, as well as a CBI investigation will be taken ahead.

The controversial appointments of at least 25,000 Group D employees are the result of influential people behind the scam. Hence, these defaulters must be exposed. The deadline as mentioned by the court to the investigating agency is 21^st December to submit the preliminary report.

Approximately, 13,000 Group D employees were suggested for appointment by the state to work in state-run schools in 2016. Based on the advice, state WBCSSC conducted examinations and based on further interviews, the state commission finalised a panel of prospective employees.

Deep-Rooted Corruption In The Case:

The system of governance in Bengal is deeply infected by corruption in this case. The petitioners brought the facts in front of the Supreme Court that pertain to illegal appointments of teachers, with 25 similar appointment scams.

The court after having back-to-back hearings, criticised the Commission and threatened to launch a CBI investigation into such grave corruption allegations.

Following that, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay also mentioned that to restrict and stop recruitment paperwork from being tempered, he is considering deploying central forces at the Commission’s office.

The Tamil Nadu Government has been directed by the Madras High Court (HC) to simply follow the guidelines mentioned in the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to remove corporal punishments in schools (GECP).

Subject Matter of the Petition

A petition was filed recently by Kamatchi Shanker Arumugam, who wanted to execute the Guidelines for Elimination of Corporal Punishments (GECP) in schools by the authorities, which is supplied by the NCPCR. Hence, Justice S M Subramaniam gave a directive to the Principal Secretary to the Government, the School Education Department. This directive was an interim order related to the above petition, concerning the implementation of NCPCR’s guidelines.

Judge’s Observations

The Judge stated that to safeguard the mental health of the students, it is significant that the educational establishments follow the guidelines given by NCPCR.

There must be awareness initiatives from these authorities, that can guide the public about student safety, and urge them to take strict actions against the defaulters.

The Judge stated that to properly execute the recommendations provided by the NCPCR, a set of instructions must be given to the district educational authorities for arranging awareness camps and seminars on this subject matter.

For instance, if there is any complaint against a person going against the NCPCR’s guidelines, then the authorized agency must take appropriate and immediate action.

The Judge further stated that the officials in question must face disciplinary actions by the department, as per Service rules. These actions are prone to any form of negligence, lapses, or dereliction.

As per court observations, appropriate remedial actions, in case of physical punishments in schools, by the authorized educational department, for any form of child harassment situations, can reduce the negative impact of the situation on the child’s and parents’ mental health.

Role of Principal Secretary

To ensure that the guidelines are implemented as intended, the Principal Secretary will have to instruct the district educational authorities to form a monitoring committee in each school. This Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, is held responsible for forming these monitoring committees.

Monitoring committees will be led by the Head of the Educational Institution and will include parents, senior students, teachers and all other members as determined by the Government.

There will be strict observance of following the NCPCR’s guidelines by the committees. These committees will keep a check on any unusual and undesirable behaviour by the staff or the kids and will then report it to the competent authority. Following that, corrective action plans will be taken.

The guidelines as directed to the Principal Secretary will be given under Clauses 7.8 and 7.9 of the GECP framework.

The judge stated that a deadline of a maximum of 5 weeks is given for the issuance of a combined directive and circular. It is expected on 14^th June 2024 by the Judge from the Registry circular to list the subject matter under the caption “For Reporting Compliance.”

Falsely Accusing Spouse of Infidelity Is Mental Cruelty: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling has stated that accusing your partner falsely of infidelity is the gravest form of cruelty. In case of false accusation, where you accuse your spouse of having extramarital relationships and refuse them parenthood of their children is a grave form of mental cruelty.

A Division Bench including Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Suresh Kumar Kait shared their judgement, sustaining a decision made by a family court to reject a husband’s request for a divorce based on cruelty by his wife.

As per the court, bringing false and baseless accusations against a spouse, specifically about fidelity and character, and thereby rejecting the legitimacy of the children can cause severe mental damage and grave anguish. Such acts of cruelty damage the marriage in an irreparable manner.

Observations Made By The Bench:

• The Bench declares that these acts are the worst form of humiliation, cruelty, and insult.
• It was observed by the Bench that the accused has not seen any compromising situations, that he claims against his wife.
• Further, the appellant was observed to have adamant and persistent doubts about the respondent’s morality.
• The appellant has made reprehensible and unsubstantiated accusations against the respondent’s character.
• He also claimed that the respondent was having an illicit relationship with more than one person in the court.
• The Bench disqualifies the accused from getting a divorce.

The Legal Proceedings:

The spouse was chastised by the judges for his demeaning and unrelenting accusations, which also targeted the innocent children by expressing grave doubts about their legitimacy. The appellant went on to openly deny his parentage in a very unsubstantiated manner during cross-examination.

He said that he could not trust the fact that the children belonged to him. The bench observed that heinous allegations like these on innocent victims amount to severe mental cruelty.

The Court further stated that the husband’s allegations of a wife are a serious assault on his wife’s honour, character, and mental health. It also shared its views that this act has been shocking because unproven accusations of the spouse’s perfidiousness and his kids are enough to bar the appellant from getting a divorce.

It was mentioned that he made a general and vague accusation about threats concerning suicide and their potential relation to criminal subject matters. It was noticed that he had made general and imprecise claims about suicide threats and their implication for criminal proceedings.

The respondent has been the victim of cruelty, not the appellant. Citing the husband’s inability to provide valid evidence for his allegations and his brutal role in family life, the Bench concluded that it was his wife who was suffering cruelty and respected her choice to refuse a divorce.

Three doctors filed petitions challenging the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine’s appointment procedures where appointment of the doctors as assistant surgeons was based on a bond agreement as per applicable laws.

The case brought by S Sahana Priyanka and two other persons was dismissed by Judge S M Subramaniam. The petitioners’ advocate argued that during the COVID-19 phase, their services were rendered.

Hence, this time frame of the COVID-19 pandemic was taken to configure an overall compulsion of two-year service under the terms and conditions of the bond.

Government’s View:

The government attorney said the government itself has reduced the time frame from two to one year by G.O. dated 27^th October 2023. To comply with bond conditions, the petitioners are required to serve one year in any Government Medical hospital or college.

The government intended to give a guarantee to these doctors who received their post-graduate training at a minimum cost. It will also promote serving the underprivileged and impoverished.

The public, as observed by the Judge, has the right to anticipate that the medical professionals will use these training to help the poor, underprivileged, and sick people. During the candidates’ admission, signing a bond may provide a guarantee to needy and underprivileged patients, and easy access to postgraduate doctors.

Because these candidates are licensed and competent medical professionals, hence it was assumed that before signing these bonds, they must have read it carefully.

Fundamental Rights Involved

Article 21, as per the Judge guarantees quality medical care to any impoverished person admitted to government hospitals. These doctors were found violating the fundamental rights of citizens, who are needy in this matter.

Medicine is a noble profession, hence doctors are expected to follow the government regulations, as stated by the Judge. Even the medical colleges that these postgraduate candidates are attending are indirectly funded by the taxes that the poor people pay in different forms.

Judge’s Observations

The Judge believed that this attitude of doctors showcased neglect of public interest by the latter, which is unacceptable. If a candidate does not work after finishing their courses and signing their bond during admission, then it is a sheer violation of government orders and bond conditions.

Tamil Nadu government medical institutes have a significant shortage of doctors, hence this attitude by doctors leads to depriving quality of patient treatment.

The judge also said that lowering the bond term to one year was also not a justified act of the Government. The Judge ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession, for a further reduced period of the bond.

“Gender-neutrality” must prevail in every judgement and any stereotypes cannot blind the judges on subject matters of profession or gender. It was reviewing a ruling that cleared the husband of a police official of allegations of cruelty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Judges take on Gender-neutrality

According to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the sessions court’s conclusions were based on “unjustified bias and perception.” A police officer could never be a victim of domestic abuse rather than on the criminal law rules and a fair trial.

Judges must remember the concept of gender neutrality when writing decisions that involve terminologies and language of gender neutrality. Judges’ mindsets should be free from preconceptions or biases related to their line of task or their gender.

Inclusion of Gender-neutrality In Delhi Judicial Academy

Delhi Judicial Academy is asked by the Delhi HC to include gender sensitivity in its syllabus. The HC stated that the professional background and gender of the complainant if given undue attention, the concepts of equality and justice seem disregarded.

The accused husband was said not to have intimated his wife because of his professional position, but the court noted that both the wife and the husband, in this case, were employed by the Delhi Police, but the position of the wife was used against her by the sessions court.

Spectacles of impartiality, gender neutrality, and equality, must be the primary responsibility of legal and judicial academics. Judges must not view litigants through spheres of gender inequalities, while some hidden perceptions or biases prevail in their mindset.

Concept of Gender-neutrality

Understanding “gender-neutrality” and including it in judicial education curriculum, promotes well-informed judgements and deeper analysis of the viewpoints of others. Women sometimes are prone to mistreatment because of a lack of power and influence in their households.

Advantages of Gender-neutrality to Women

All women must be treated with the same dignity, access to legal safeguards, and respect, regardless of their origin or their status. The Supreme Court has declared that this concept applies to man as well. Women’s empowerment or achievement must never be used as a tool to diminish their position or deny them their legal privileges or protections.

Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi has recently requested Supreme Court (SC) to quash the decision which was passed by the Delhi High Court (HC).

Delhi HC rejected his writ appealing his Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrest in his money laundering case. This case involved the Delhi tax policy-related issues. Arvind was detained on 21^st March 2024.

He has filed the case to appear before Dipankar Datta and Sanjiv Khanna, against his detention along with Hemant Soren, who was earlier the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.

Kejriwal responded to ED’s counter-affidavit in this case. Hemant Soren filed a request to SC to relieve him from jail. Soren has stated that his arrest is completely unlawful and illegal.

The Jharkhand HC has reserved its decision on Soren’s appeal who needs relief from his arrest. He conveyed to Kabil Sibal, his senior counsel, that the decision is still pending from the HC.

As per the plea made by Soren’s advocate to the HC, his remand, in this case, was arbitrary and unwarranted and his arrest was illegal. He asked for urgent interim bail because of the Lok Sabha elections.

Soren was chairperson of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) in January and was taken in custody in a land scam case. He made this interim bail request to attend the burial of his uncle.

He made an urgent plea to the SC because of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. He also promised to stay in jail, after the elections were over. This decision has been reserved since February this year. He was denied an interim bail of 13 days by the Special Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Court at Ranchi.

The most popular instant messaging service in the World, WhatsApp, threatened to quit India if it was forced to crack call and message encryption on Thursday, telling the Delhi High Court.

When WhatsApp’s attorney addressed a Delhi High Court bench over the company’s appeal against the revised Information Technology (IT) regulations, he said that as a platform, they are saying that if they are forced to break encryption, then WhatsApp will depart.

WhatsApp argued that the IT regulations were introduced without consulting anyone when it opposed their changes. It stated that they opposed user privacy.

Speaking on behalf of WhatsApp, Tejas Karia informed the judge that users utilize the service because of its privacy features.

The company contended that the regulations infringe upon the customers’ basic rights as guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The advocate said that no other country in the World had any laws like these. He claimed that because WhatsApp would not know which communication would require decryption, it would not have to maintain a “full chain.”

It implies that a vast number of messages will need to be kept on file for many years, he stated. Facebook and WhatsApp have filed a court case contesting the new regulations, claiming that they infringe upon people’s right to privacy.

The two firms’ appeal has been met with opposition from the Ministry of Electronics and IT of the federal government, which claims WhatsApp breached users’ fundamental rights by not providing a dispute resolution system.

The government informed the Delhi High Court (HC) that it would be challenging for law enforcement to track down the source of fake texts if the regulations were not followed.

It was stated that such a message might cause problems for public order and disturb the nation’s peace and harmony.

WhatsApp has previously stated in a statement that following the guidelines would result in a privacy breach. It stated that requiring messaging platforms to “track” chats is the same as asking us to retain a record of every communication transmitted on WhatsApp, which would violate end-to-end encryption and seriously jeopardize users’ right to privacy.

The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which were drafted by the Central Government, require OTT and digital platforms to create their grievance redressal mechanisms.

Social media sites must identify the “first originator of information” upon request as per rules.

Varun Kumar, a national hockey player, was granted anticipatory bail by the Karnataka High Court (HC) in a case where he is accused of sexually abusing a teenage girl after pledging to marry her.

The girl, who was 17, is said to have been sexually assaulted by Kumar in 2019, and it is claimed that pictures of her from that incident were used to “trap” her with malicious intent.

He allegedly declined to keep his word after May 2023. On 6^th February of this year, he was charged with violating both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act.

Varun Kumar, a national hockey player, was granted anticipatory bail by the Karnataka HC in a case where he is accused of sexually abusing a teenage girl after pledging to marry her.

The girl, who was 17, is said to have been sexually assaulted by Kumar in 2019, and it is claimed that pictures of her from that incident were used to “trap” her with malicious intent.

He allegedly declined to keep his word after May 2023. On 6^th February of this year, he was charged with violating both the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act.

On 18^th April, Kumar was granted anticipatory bail by a bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar, following an argument by his attorney that documents from 2021 to 2023, during which the woman was a major, demonstrated a voluntary relationship between them.

Additionally, it was maintained that since she hailed from a wealthy family (her parents were politicians and two police officials), and Kumar was from a lowly background, there was little chance that she would be trapped or blackmailed by him.

The attorney added that since Kumar could not leave his parents, disagreements had developed over where they would live after marriage and that both families were aware of their connection.

However, the prosecution’s attorney argued against providing bail, pointing out that the woman was a child at the time of their first encounter.

They added that since her father recently passed away, there is a chance that witness tampering will take place.

The victim was 17.5 years old when the first event occurred, according to the court. The parties continued their relationship until 14.05.2023, even after the victim reached adulthood.

The victim filed no complaints at all during this time about being seduced or taken advantage of by the petitioner. However, charges of violations of the POSCO Act are made four years later, which seems quite odd.

The Bench also noted that because the woman came from a powerful family, the argument that she was influenced by images would not stand up. It drew attention to the disparity between the four years of dating and the alleged rape.

The case needs a thorough trial, and the legal system will proceed if the petitioner is proven guilty at that point. However, the bench determined that the pre-trial detention is unnecessary because it will seriously damage a person’s reputation.

After that, the bail petition was granted subject to the bond of Rs. 2 lakh and other requirements.