Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Supreme Court's Firm Stance: No Room for Misleading Advertisements

Supreme Court's Firm Stance: No Room for Misleading Advertisements


Supreme Court Rebukes Uttarakhand Government


The Supreme Court issued a stern rebuke to the Uttarakhand government for its inaction against Patanjali Ayurved in a case concerning misleading advertisements. The court also refused to accept the apologies offered by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.


Concerns Raised by the Apex Court


A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed concerns over the impact of misleading advertisements on unsuspecting consumers. The court emphasized the need for accountability, particularly for FMCG companies like Patanjali Ayurved.


Directive to Uttarakhand Government


The apex court directed the Uttarakhand government to take decisive action against officials who failed to act on complaints regarding Patanjali Ayurved's advertisements. It stressed the importance of sending a strong message to society about complying with court orders.


Refusal to Accept Apology


Despite the apologies tendered by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, the Supreme Court refused to accept them, considering them a deliberate violation of the court's orders. The court emphasized the need for genuine remorse and compliance with the law.


Commitment to Uphold the Law


In their affidavits, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna expressed regret for the misleading advertisements and pledged to uphold the majesty of the law. However, the court expressed skepticism about the sincerity of their apologies.


Enforcement of Compliance


The Supreme Court underscored the importance of enforcing compliance with its directives and ensuring accountability at all levels, including government officials and corporate entities.


Conclusion


The case highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding consumer rights and holding both government authorities and corporations accountable for their actions. It serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical advertising practices and adherence to legal obligations.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more