After Emotional Appeal, Sunil Chhetri Scores Brace in India's 3-0 Win Against Kenya

In a significant development, a special court tasked with handling cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MP/MLAs) has ordered that a First Information Report (FIR) be filed regarding the Muda case.

Additionally, the Karnataka Lokayukta, which is an anti-corruption body, has been tasked with investigating allegations against Siddaramaiah, who is reportedly involved in the case.

The court instructed the Lokayukta (an anti-corruption authority) to provide a report within three months. It also ordered the relevant authorities to file a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the case.

Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat issued the directive, compelling the Mysuru Lokayukta police to commence an investigation following a formal complaint lodged by Snehamayi Krishna. 

The Karnataka Lokayukta in Mysuru is required to carry out the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during a recent court hearing.

Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

New Delhi: Downloading and watching child pornography is an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Supreme Court ruled today in a landmark judgment on the stringent law to prevent child abuse.

The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the Madras High Court order that had ruled that merely downloading and watching child pornography was not an offence under the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court noted that the high court had committed an "egregious error" in passing the judgment.

The Madras High Court's order had come in a case in which a 28-year-old man was charged with downloading child pornography on his phone. The court had quashed the criminal proceedings against the man and said children these days are grappling with the serious issue of watching pornography and society must be mature enough to educate them instead of punishing them.

The Supreme Court today restored the criminal proceedings against the man.

At the outset, Justice Pardiwala thanked the Chief Justice for the opportunity to pen this judgment. The order focused on Section 15 of the POCSO Act which lays down punishment for the storage of pornographic material involving children.

"Any person who stores any pornographic material involving a child and fails to report or destroy it is punishable with a fine of not less than five thousand rupees., and repeat offence will be punishable with fine of not less than ten thousand rupees. If the material is stored for further transmitting or propagating, then along with fine, it is punishable with upto three years of imprisonment. For storing child pornographic material for commercial purpose is punishable with three to five years of imprisonment, and in subsequent conviction, upto seven years of imprisonment," the Section says.

Justice Pardiwala said that in this case, mens rea is to be gathered from actus rea -- mens rea refers to the intent behind the crime and actus rea is the actual criminal act.

"We have said on the lingering impact of child pornography on the victimisation and abuse of children... We have suggested to the Parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO... so that child pornography can be referred to as child sexually abusive and exploitative material. We have suggested an ordinance can be brought in. We have asked all courts not to refer to child pornography in any order," the bench said.

The Chief Justice called it a "landmark judgment" and thanked Justice Pardiwala.