Legal Reference Library

In the Internet age access to information is quick and procuring personal information or antecedents of an individual is much easier. Acknowledging this fact and the sensitive nature of case in hand, the Karnataka High Court in a landmark judgment recently  Sri Vasunathan vs The Registrar General, has accepted, applied and approved the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian context. The “right to be forgotten” or “the right to be erased” allows an individual to request for removal of his/her personal information/data online. The origin of this right can be traced back to the French jurisprudence on the ‘right to oblivion’ or droit à l’oubli. The rationale behind it was to allow offenders who had served their sentence to object to the publication of information regarding their crime and conviction in order to ease their process of social integration. these lines that the European Union Data Protection Directive, 1995 acknowledged the right to be forgotten, wherein it was stip...

The Kerala High Court in G. Madhavan Nair v Union of India & others (W.P(c) No:30342 of 2014) has ruled that Kerala High Court cannot assume Jurisdiction, based on the mere fact  that the alleged cause of action was communicated  through website and it was accessed in Kerala. The petitioner  an eminent Scientist, who had  worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and has headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity“ISRO”] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years had approached the High Court impugning orders passed by the respondents black listing  him from undertaking  any future Government assignment. Petitioner challenged these orders ;before the High Court Of Kerala  trying to take cue from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 which permitted a  High Court to issue directions,orders or writs to any Government , authority or person who resides outside the territorial jurisdicti...

SC upholds banning mobile internet to maintain peace There is nothing wrong in banning mobile internet to maintain law and order, the Supreme Court said Thursday finding no fault with the Gujarat government’s decision during the Patidar agitation in the state. “There can be such ban for law and order,” said a bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice R Bhanumathi while upholding the Gujarat high court’s verdict that had declared the ban was right. The Supreme Court’s decision came on an appeal filed by Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas who had challenged the High Court verdict. The ban was imposed under section 144 of the criminal procedure code, notified by the police when it apprehends a law and order problem. The prohibitory orders prevent an unlawful assembly. The petitioner’s lawyer, Apar Gupta, argued the ban under the CrPc was untenable. He contended there was a special law--the Telegraph Act--to deal with such situations. A special law will override the general statue and so the ...

HDFC to pay for negligence The National Consumer Disputes Commission last week ruled that HDFC Bank was negligent by not verifying the signatures on applications for net banking and electronic money transfer, leading to siphoning of money from the salary account of one Swapan Kumar. According to his complaint, bank officials conniving with a former security guard of the bank, forged his signatures on applications. Ordering compensation, the commission observed that "had the concerned bank manager been careful, he would have rejected the applications… The official at least on noting the difference in signatures was expected to contact the complainant to verify them." Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/disparity-in-computing-compensation-115112200776_1.html Note: This is a potentially dangerous situation. In this case, the plaintiff was a able prove that he had not applied for net banking. But with the all pervading presence of net based t...