THE LEAFLET BULLETIN

Article 370 is one of the issues before the electorate in Jammu and Kashmir

SHAHID?Ahamd, an unemployed youth from Central Kashmir’s Ganderbal district, has been beavering away to get a government job for the past three years. Although he has applied for a couple of jobs advertised by the Jammu and Kashmir government, the authorities, following the reports of discrepancies in the selection process,?scrapped ?the recruitment process.

The?gruelling?wait for a job has now begun exacting a toll on his health, and sometimes he feels that he is slipping into depression.

For Ahmad,?the ballooning youth?unemployment?is a major issue in Jammu and Kashmir, and the political leaders in the region must do something?about it.

AG defends EWS quota as distinct and not violative of basic structure theory

EARLIER?today, the Attorney General for India (‘AG’), K.K. Venugopal strongly defended the?validity?of the?Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 ?that provides for a ten per cent quota to economically weaker sections (‘EWS’) of citizens in admission to educational institutions, including private educational institutions. The?petitions challenging the amendment ?are being heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala.

Supporting?the amendment, Venugopal said that the?introduction of reservation up to ten per cent has to be necessarily treated as an extraordinary situation, and hence cannot be the subject of any argument of violation of the basic structure.

Hijab not part of fundamental right to freedom of expression: Respondents before the Supreme Court

KARNATAKA?Advocate General P. Navadgi argued before the Supreme Court’s division bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that not every religious practice is protected by?Article 25 ?of the Constitution, and that there is no fundamental right to wear the hijab in the classroom in defiance of prescribed uniform.

The bench continued to hear today a?batch of petitions ?challenging ?the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka based on the?Karnataka Government Order on Dress Code for Students ?(‘GO’) and the?Karnataka Education Act, 1983 , which was?upheld ?by the Karnataka High Court on March 15. Today was the ninth day of hearing.

Karnataka Advocate General P. Navadgi’s arguments

Referring to a catena of past decisions of this court holding that?triple talaq ,?polygamy ,?offering of namaz at a mosque ?and?cow slaughter ?are not essential religious practices within Islam, he submitted that it was imperative for the petitioners to show that donning the hijab was an essential religious practice within Islam to seek protection of Article 25.

Supreme Court mulls filling up vacuum in law to control hate speech

THE?Supreme Court earlier today expressed concern at the growing phenomenon of hate speeches across the country, and directed the Union Government to apprise it on whether it was contemplating acting upon the?recommendations ?of the Law Commission of India suggesting certain amendments to the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with the cases of hate speech.

A division bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said it would examine the “adequacy” of the current law to deal with hate speech in a meaningful way.

The bench was hearing a batch of petitions concerning hate speech. One of the petitioners is Bharatiya Janta Party leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who is seeking implementation of the Law Commission’s?recommendation.?The bench was also hearing?a?petition ?filed by?Qurban Ali, a senior tri-lingual (Hindi, Urdu, and English) journalist with more than 35 years of experience, against hate speeches being delivered at?dharm sansads?being organised by right-wing outfits across different parts of the country.

Concerns over regulatory vacuum in relation to surrogate advertising?

Why have certain advertisements aired during recent international cricket tournaments generated controversy?

WITH?the?rise ?of mobile-based financial apps since the onset of the pandemic, betting apps have come in vogue. There is now a market for betting platforms in India, and this has naturally led to more advertisements for such services.

Of course, betting and gambling are prohibited items in terms of advertising and are also banned in most parts of India, and so this has led to surrogate advertising in the space. These betting platforms, such as Betway and 1xBet, have been constantly advertising on over-the-top platforms during sports events. They have?used ?professional athletes such as former international cricketers Yuvraj Singh and Suresh Raina, for ads. This led to the Union Government?issuing a strongly-worded advisory ?which reads as follows: –

“The advertisements of online betting are misleading and do not appear to be in strict conformity with the?Consumer Protection Act 2019 ,?Advertising Code ?under the?Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995 , and advertisement norms under the?Norms of Journalistic Conduct ?laid down by the Press Council of India under the?Press Council Act, 1978 ”

Live streaming

After?all the clamouring,

Cajoling and screaming

There’s supreme success!

We’ll have?live streaming .

Congrats to Super Milords

Who’ve treated this malady

(Albeit after getting a shove

From the famous gutsy lady)

The biggest advantage of

This decision to live-stream

Is that any common viewer

Can watch a show Supreme!

Essential practice

It is daily in the news

How can anyone miss it?

Everyone is discussing

What’s “essential practice”!

Wearing fancy headgear

Was once a matter of pride

Even if there was nothing

But lot of prejudice inside!

It is optional for milords

To wear a scowl or frown

For blackcoats to impress

What’s essential is a gown!