Latest news with #2000
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Govt issued 1,524 blocking directions for online betting, gambling platforms: MoS IT
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The government issued 1,524 orders from 2022 till June 2025 to block online betting and gambling platforms , Parliament was informed on of state for electronics and IT, Jitin Prasada, said in a written reply to Lok Sabha that the policies of the Central Government are aimed at ensuring open, safe, trusted and accountable internet for its users."From 2022 till June 2025, the Government has issued 1,524 blocking directions related to online betting/gambling/gaming websites and mobile applications," he said the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters is empowered as an appropriate government agency under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (" IT Act ") and the IGST Act to direct intermediaries to block unregistered online money gaming platforms, including offshore online money gaming platforms, violating the IGST said that the suppliers of online money gaming are also being regulated under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act)."Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, 'Betting and gambling' is a State subject (entry 34 of the List II). Therefore, as per the provisions of article 246 read with article 162 of the Constitution, State Legislatures have the power to legislate on matters related to betting and gambling," Prasada minister said that the states and union territories are primarily responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes, including action on illegal betting and gambling."The Central Government supplements the efforts of the States/Union Territories through advisories and financial assistance under various schemes for capacity building of their LEA," Prasada said.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
SC sets aside jail term of man found juvenile in rape case, upholds conviction
New Delhi, Jul 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of an accused for raping a minor girl in 1988 but set aside his jail term after finding him to be a juvenile on the date of crime. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said after the accused claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the crime, the apex court asked the district and sessions judge at Ajmer to conduct an inquiry into his claims. The bench, upon examining the inquiry report, said the accused was aged 16-years-two-months-and-three days on the date of crime on November 17, 1988. 'The appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime," the bench said. It said authoritative judgments of the top court have categorically held that plea of juvenility could be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case. The bench said as the accused was then a juvenile, the provisions as contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would apply. 'Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the trial court and upheld by the high court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly," the bench held. While section 15 of the 2000 Act deals with order that may be passed regarding juvenile, Section 16 relates to order that may not be passed against juvenile. The top court's verdict came on the accused's appeal against a July 2024 verdict of the Rajasthan High Court. The high court had confirmed his conviction and five-year sentence awarded by a trial court in the case. His counsel, in the apex court, highlighted the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case and said the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The bench noted the survivor was firm in her cross-examination supported by the medical evidence. Her testimony was found 'worthy of credence" requiring no corroboration that could form the sole basis for conviction. 'Prosecution's case is not founded solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply supported by the statements of other witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively establish the case of the prosecution," the top court said. It said the findings recorded with regard to his conviction stood duly established beyond doubt. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 21:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
Cyber fraud racket busted in Chirang, 11 held, 31 ATM cards seized
Guwahati: A racket operating from outside Assam was busted in Chirang district, leading to the arrest of 11 people, police said on Tuesday. The case came to light after a complaint by one Imran Hussain at Bijni police station 15 days ago, alleging that his wife's bank account details and SIM card were fraudulently used by one Afsar Uddin. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Chirang SP Akshat Garg said Hussain alleged that Uddin obtained the information by falsely promising to credit money against his wife's Mahatma Gandhi NREGA job card. "Hussain also alleged that a financial transaction of Rs 1 lakh was detected in his wife's bank account, and the account was found blocked when he checked it in the home branch of the bank," the SP added. A case was registered under sections of criminal conspiracy, cheating, breach of trust, and property theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with relevant charges of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Following a 15-day investigation, police arrested 11 suspects and seized electronic evidence, including 31 ATM cards, 26 SIM cards, nine cheque books, and 12 bank passbooks. "The modus operandi of the accused was to target gullible villagers, luring them with money in the name of some job card or govt schemes. They collect the bank details and SIM card of the target villagers and share those details in certain Telegram groups," the SP said. He added that these Telegram groups are operated from different states of the country and even abroad. "The administrators operate the groups from different locations. The arrested people get an incentive of Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 per day for their work," he added. The bank accounts were allegedly used for financial transactions by cyber-frauds, the SP said, adding that the investigation will explore all possible angles and more developments are expected. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The arrested people are Afsar Uddin, Matleb Ali, Abdul Awal, Akher Ali, Saddam Hussain, Golap Hussain, Mir Kashem, Anwar Hussain, Jiarul Islam, Manju Ali, and Surman Ali. All are residents of Bijni under the jurisdiction of Bijni police station.
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SG creates fake ‘SC of Karnataka' X account to flag misuse, defends blocking orders in HC
BENGALURU: To demonstrate how platform 'X' can be misused, and the necessity to curtail its misuse, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on Friday showed the Karnataka High Court a fake account in the name of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' which was verified by the platform X. Making a submission before Justice M Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by X Corp questioning the series of blocking orders issued by the Union government, Mehta drew the attention of the court by giving an illustration to defend the blocking orders. Mehta explained that they opened an account in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X, and it is a verified account. 'Now we can post anything on it, and viewers can say that the Supreme Court of Karnataka said it. The creator of the account remains anonymous,' he submitted. However, senior counsel KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, took serious exception to the demonstration of a fake account and also the contention of the Solicitor General, who in turn contended that the fake account was created only to demonstrate the element of misuse and was not used. Interfering at this stage, the court said a fake account is only an illustration that creating such accounts on the intermediary is easy, and it will not prejudice the case of X. Later, Raghavan informed the court that the said fake account has been blocked by X. X Corp moved the Karnataka High Court, seeking to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) does not confer powers on the Union government to issue information-blocking orders under the IT Act. It prayed to the high court to declare that information-blocking orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules). X Corp also requested the court to restrain the Union government from taking coercive or prejudicial action against them for not joining the censorship portal Sahyog, as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has attempted delegation of power that it itself does not have, and should be struck down. Further hearing was adjourned to July 25.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
ETtech Explainer: X, Centre at loggerheads over social media misuse
In a legal battle on accountability versus liberty, the government of India and Elon Musk's microblogging platform X are slugging it out in the Karnataka High Court. At the eye of the storm are the government's content-blocking orders and issues arising out of them. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Indian government and Elon Musk's X are engaged in a legal battle before the Karnataka High Court over the question of accountability versus liberty. The microblogging platform has argued that the government's content-blocking orders hinder its business. In response, the government has advocated for justified action against misleading content on social matter has raised questions over the Information Technology Act, 2000 provisions that mandate taking down problematic content and grant 'safe harbour' to intermediaries that host take a look at arguments set forth so far by both parties and their prospective implications:In its plea before the Karnataka High Court, X has asked for the scrapping of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules as unconstitutional. It also wants the court to declare that the government cannot take down content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and only the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules, allows 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, mandates that intermediaries should take down unlawful content following a court order or appropriate government notification under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which rescinds 'safe harbour' against criminal liability granted to such entities if they fail to take down information after being notified.X has been vocal about takedown orders from the government, calling them unjustified and detrimental to its business in a hearing earlier this month, KG Raghavan, representing X in the matter, had told the court that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" government official had been authorised to issue content takedown orders, which evoked sharp rebuke from the government's the legal spat is unfolding as Musk is looking to launch and expand his companies—Tesla and Starlink—in Indian government has been proposing regulations for content on social media platforms to curb the proliferation of harmful the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that X has been trying to shirk its responsibility by hiding behind 'safe harbour' provisions. The platform allowing unlawful content in the name of free speech is endangering democracy, Mehta the hearing on Friday, the law officer presented before the court a verified account of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X to make the point that creating fake accounts and getting them verified are easy on the platform."We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation. It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," Mehta told the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, pressing his point that many instances of online harm fall into a regulatory grey explained that the legal framework includes both severe and minimal interventions and advocated for cautious, proportionate responses in certain court will now hear the matter next on July the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April, several social media accounts across platforms were blocked by the Indian government to check the spread of misinformation amid heightened bilateral tensions. While the accounts were primarily from Pakistan, some Indian accounts were affected in the action as May 9, X blocked its own Global Government Affairs account, a day after revealing that it was asked by the government to restrict 8,000 accounts of prominent news organisations and individuals. The social media platform said the government threatened significant fines and imprisonment of its employees upon failure to comply. The account was later July 6, official accounts of the global news portal Reuters and Reuters Global were withheld in India. While the IT Ministry denied issuing any order to this effect, X said that it was asked to block 2,355 accounts, along with the two from Reuters, under Section 69A of the IT response, the government blamed X for delaying the restoration of the two accounts and denied its claims that it wanted to block any international news ongoing spat has also brought into focus the 'safe harbour' accorded to internet intermediaries against third-party content they host. In his arguments, Mehta has noted that safe harbour is not an absolute right but a privilege granted to intermediaries who adhere to a written submission to a parliamentary committee, the government had said that it is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour to curb the spread of fake news. Changes in provisions would affect all social media platforms operating in India, not just X.
