web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Orissa High Court, in this bail matter, held that right to be forgotten (or left alone) is part of bouquet of rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

From Para 5,

5. While examining the pages of the case records, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has uploaded the said photos/videos on a social media platform i.e. Facebook and with the intervention of the police, after some days, he deleted the said objectionable contents from the Facebook. In fact, the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can’t get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Under the Indian Criminal Justice system a strong penal action is prescribed against the accused for such heinous crime but there is no mechanism available with respect to the right of the victim to get the objectionable photographs deleted from the server of the Facebook. The different types of harassment, threats and assaults that frighten citizens in regard to their online presence pose serious concerns for
citizens. There is an unprecedented escalation of such insensitive behavior on the social media platforms and the victim like the present one could not get those photos deleted permanently from server of such social media platforms like facebook. Though the statute prescribes penal action for the
accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. There is a widespread and seemingly consensual convergence towards an adoption and enshrinement of the right to get deleted or forgotten but hardly any effort has been undertaken in India till recently, towards adoption of such a right, despite such an issue has inexorably posed in the technology dominated world. Presently, there is no statute in India which provides for the right to be forgotten/getting the photos erased from the server of the social media platforms permanently. The legal possibilities of being forgotten on line or off line cries for a widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances. In fact, it cries for a clear cut demarcation of institutional boundaries and redressal of many delicate issues which hitherto remain unaddressed in Indian jurisdiction. The dynamics of hyper connectivity- the abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of communication network have redefined the memory and the prescriptive mandate to include in the technological contours is of pressing importance.

From Para 14,

14. Section 27 of the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 contains the right to be forgotten. Under Section 27, a data principal (an individual) has the right to prevent continuing disclosure of personal data by a data fiduciary. The aforesaid provision which falls under Chapter VI (Data Principal Rights) of the Bill, distinctly carves out the “right to be forgotten” in no uncertain terms. In terms of this provision, every data principal shall have the right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure of personal data (relating to such data principal) by any data fiduciary if such disclosure meets any one of the following three conditions, namely if the disclosure of personal data:
(i) has served the purpose for which it was made or is no longer necessary; or
(ii) was made on the basis of the data  principal’s consent and such consent has since been withdrawn; or
(iii) was made contrary to the provisions of the bill or any other law in force.
In addition to this, Section 10 of the Bill provides that a data fiduciary shall retain personal data only as long as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is  processed. Further, it imposes an obligation on every data fiduciary to undertake periodic reviews in order to  determine whether it is necessary to retain the personal data in its possession. If it is not necessary for personal data to be retained by a data fiduciary, then such personal data must be deleted in a manner as may be specified.

 

Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020

Index of Article 21 case laws is here.

Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Right to be Forgotten Right to be left alone Right to Personal Liberty Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha | Leave a comment

Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Orissa High Court held the NRIS Quota as an affront and unconstitutional.

11. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that the NRIS category is an affront to the meritorious candidates who toiled day night to secure seats in NLUs through CLAT. The candidates belonging to the category of NRI/NRIS, who are very low ranked in the merit list often gets seat in the NLUs whereas the general candidates having secured better marks also lag behind the NRIS students and get disappointed. This is like the reservation for the elite class and this dubious category of quota is unconstitutional. The eligibility and selection under this category are unregulated, illegal and arbitrary. Even the apex court has observed in P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra that admissions under this category is given to less meritorious students just because they could afford to pay the higher fees demanded by the University. The Consortium of NLUs, the Bar Council of India and all the stake holders involved in the process should revisit the so-called NRIS quota and prepare a proper regulation and system while implementing this quota. Several studies reveal that the selection process under this NRIS quota is quite vague, undefined and is based on inconsistent parameters. This Court calls upon the relevant stake holders especially the Bar Council of India, which is mandated to regulate the legal education in this country to ensure that a uniform and well-defined parameter are adopted so that the meritorious candidates do not suffer. The elitist approach to selected group in CLAT Admission process must be restricted. It is imperative that this issue needs to be settled within a shortest possible time to assuage the pains of the unselected due to poor rank.

Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors Law or Body Struck Down as Unconstitutional | Leave a comment

Rajani Kanta Padhi Vs State of Orissa and Others on 02 July 2010

Posted on June 30, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Arun Vyas judgment from Apex Court, High Court of Orissa held as,

From Para 8,

There is no dispute over the proposition that offence under  Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is a continuing offence. The victim would have a new starting point of limitation on each occasion on which she was subjected to cruelty. Period of limitation has, therefore, to be computed from the last act of cruelty committed against the victim. In this context, decision in Arun Vyas and another v. Anita Vyas (supra) may be referred to. Section 498-A of the I.P.C. provides that a person for commission of offence thereunder shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 406 of the I.P.C. provides that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment  of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Therefore, period of limitation for taking cognizance of commission of offences under Sections 498-A as well as 406 of the I.P.C. is three years as provided under Section 468 (2)(c) of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 11,

In Arun Vyas and another v. Anita Vyas (supra) also it was held that offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is a continuing offence and that there would be a new starting point of limitation on each occasion on which the victim was subjected to cruelty. It was specifically held that the last act of cruelty was committed when the victim was forced to leave matrimonial home.

From Para 12,

12.
Thus, in view of nature of offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., it has been consistently highlighted that court should adopt liberal approach in favour of extending of period of limitation under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. However, it is now well-settled that while taking cognizance after expiry of period of limitation, the Magistrate has to pass a speaking order assigning reasons for exercise of the discretion under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.

 

Rajani Kanta Padhi vs State Of Orissa And Others on 02 July 2010

Citation: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/913921/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Rajani-Kant-Padhi-Versus-State-of-Orissa-2010-07-02

Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 472 - Continuing offence Rajani Kanta Padhi Vs State Of Orissa And Others

Sanjaya Narayan Sahoo Vs State Of Odisha on 1 May, 2018

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another instance of advocate fraud this time whereby an advocate demanding percentage on the permanent alimony is against professional ethics which is not permissible in law.

 

Sanjaya Narayan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 1 May, 2018
Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics Sanjaya Narayan Sahoo Vs State Of Odisha | Leave a comment

Pritipadma Pradhan Vs Debasish Pradhan on 20 August, 2014

Posted on May 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this order from Orissa High Court, permanent alimony for Knife is increased from 12 Lakhs to 20 Lakhs under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

 

Ruby @ Pritipadma Pradhan vs Debasish Pradhan on 20 August, 2014
Posted in High Court of Orissa Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act 25 – Permanent Alimony Enhanced Pritipadma Pradhan Vs Debasish Pradhan | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023 March 28, 2023
  • Bijumon and Ors Vs The New India Assurance Co on 28 Feb 2023 March 9, 2023
  • Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022 March 8, 2023
  • Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021 March 8, 2023
  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 March 8, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (1,181 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (1,158 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (1,086 views)
  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,034 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (817 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (808 views)
  • Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022 (550 views)
  • Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 27 Sep 2021 (442 views)
  • Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 (436 views)
  • Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (428 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (333)Reportable Judgement or Order (329)Landmark Case (319)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (268)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (217)1-Judge Bench Decision (151)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (83)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (54)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (35)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (640)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (160)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (54)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (40)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • IAH (Houston) on 2023-04-06 April 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 6, 07:00 - 13:00 UTCMar 28, 12:41 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in IAH (Houston) datacenter on 2023-04-06 between 07:00 and 13:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • AMS (Amsterdam) on 2023-04-06 April 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 6, 00:30 - 05:00 UTCMar 29, 11:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMS (Amsterdam) datacenter on 2023-04-06 between 00:30 and 05:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • HEL (Helsinki) on 2023-04-06 April 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Apr 6, 00:00 - 06:00 UTCMar 28, 12:41 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in HEL (Helsinki) datacenter on 2023-04-06 between 00:00 and 06:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 157.245.201.168 | S March 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 609 | First: 2023-03-20 | Last: 2023-03-28
  • 103.20.8.101 | SD March 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,159 | First: 2017-01-11 | Last: 2023-03-28
  • 212.192.0.203 | SD March 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 139 | First: 2023-03-12 | Last: 2023-03-28
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1153 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel