The Delhi High Court, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation, issued notice against Google Pay as it had been alleged that its acts amounted to unauthorized access and storage of users Aadhar details. In the PIL, the petitioner alleged that Google Pay, which acts like a united payment interface for all the banks, violates most vulnerable right of individuals’ safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner alleged that the unauthorized access and storage by the application also violated Aadhar Act 2016, Banking Regulations Act 1949, and the Payments and Settlement Systems Act 2007. The petitioner, through his counsel, contended that the payment interface has not been registered or received license under the Payments and Settlement Act, 2007 in order to legally conduct business of payments and transactions. Moreover, information received from Reserve Bank of India stated that Google Pay had not attained the status of a registered bank, financial institution, or co-operative bank under the Act of 1949. It also had been submitted that the business activities of Google Pay had been operating in contravention of banking as well as payment laws. Even in the terms and conditions of the application, the petitioner pointed out that the company mentioned to store the payment instruction details of users. However, the UIDAI did not receive any application from Google Pay to allow it to access, store, or use users Aadhar details. The authority did not even receive any intimation from RBI regarding the permission to access the bank details of users, submitted petitioner. For the aforesaid issue, the Delhi High Court has issued notices and listed the matter for the month of November, 2021. The post Delhi HC issues notice in a plea seeking action against Google Pay’s acts contravening Article 21 appeared first on LexForti Legal

The Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, through a letter granted sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ajeet Bharti, for the derogatory words used against the Supreme Court and its esteem judges, in a YouTube video which released on June 24, 2021. He further used the terms “scurrilous”, “vituperative”, and “highly derogatory” to remark the contents of the video. The video, which intended to denigrate the reputation of judiciary and raised allegations of abuse of power, bribery and favoritism, had been viewed by almost 1.7 lakh persons. The consent had been granted in furtherance of a letter written to the Attorney General to sought for his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The Attorney General expressed its concern towards the image of Indian judiciary and stated that regardless of individual’s motive, he had been educated enough to know the consequences of his actions. The statements and remarks so made were sufficient enough to lower the image of judiciary in the eyes of general public. Throughout the video, previously settled precedents by the Supreme Court had been mocked at, stating that many of the high-profile cases had been shut down at the instance of other authorities and the judges were referred to as “sinners.” The post AG grants consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ajeet Bharti appeared first on LexForti Legal News & Journal. Randy Reidwww.itcse.org

The Apex Court, while hearing a review petition, observed that in case repeated cases and complaints are being filed against a spouse, the same can amount to “cruelty” for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench further referred to such conducts and observed that even though repeated filing of cases occurred after the divorce petition, the husband would be eligible to seek divorce on ground of irretrievable marriage and cruelty. In the instant case, the wife left the company of her husband on the first day of marriage. Upon her refusal to stay with her husband, the latter filed for a divorce on the ground of cruelty. The trial court allowed the divorce petition, and later, the same had been restored by the High Court. Subsequently, the wife preferred a review petition questioning the jurisdiction of High Court to allow the decree of divorce, and the same had been allowed. The bench noted that after the filing of divorce petition, the respondent-wife had resorted to filing multiple cases in courts, including disciplinary proceedings against her husband who worked as an Assistant Professor, made representation before his college to initiate disciplinary proceedings, sought information about her husband’s remarriage, abused the process of RTI. Moreover, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. The bench observed that such continued acts displayed disintegration of marital unity and parties’ marriage. Further, it stated that continuous allegations and litigative proceedings amounted to cruelty. The bench placed reliance on a number of precedents and explained legislature’s reluctance in introducing irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. It further observed that families are arranged on the idea of mutual expectation of support, respect and amity, which had been missing in the instant case. The Supreme Court therefore,