Highlights: HC Comments on IT Rules, Proceedings Against Rahul Stayed in Patna

Catch all the legal highlights from our courts on Monday, 24 April, here.

From the Bombay High Court noting the absence of "necessary guard rails" in the new amendment to IT Rules as it heard comedian Kunal Kamra's plea, to the Patna High Court staying proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, here are the highlights from our courts on Monday, 24 April.

(Image altered by The Quint)

From the Bombay High Court noting the absence of "necessary guard rails" in the new amendment to IT Rules as it heard comedian Kunal Kamra's plea to the Patna High Court staying proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, here are the highlights from our courts on Monday, 24 April.

New IT Rules Lack Necessary 'Guard Rails': Bombay HC While Hearing Kunal Kamra's Plea

“The (Union government's) affidavit says that satire etc will be exempt .... but the rules don't say so. The problem here is the Rule however well intentioned, doesn't have the necessary guard rails."

These word the words of the Bombay High Court, as it refused to adjourn comedian Kunal Kumra's plea challenging the amendment to the Information Technology Rules, beyond Thursday.

According to LiveLaw, the division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale observed that on the face of it Kamra's challenge is "pressable."

Read more about Kunal Kamra's plea here.

SC Transfers All FIRs Against Munawar Faruqui to Indore

Meanwhile, the apex court transferred all the FIRs lodged in different states of the country against comedian Munawar Faruqui to Indore.

Additionally, according to LiveLaw, the apex court confirmed the the ad-interim bail that had been granted to Faruqui in February 2021, and made it ‘absolute’.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol also, reportedly at the behest of Faruqui's counsel, agreed to extend a stay on the production warrants issued in the cases against him "for a period of three weeks from today."

Faruqui's counsel had also beseeched the bench not to transfer the FIRs to either Indore or Prayagraj claiming that "there are threats to Faruqui’s safety in these cities," and that Faruqui had been ‘manhandled’ very badly in Indore.

However, Justice Karol had instead reportedly said: “Indore is a safe city. It is also close to Mumbai…"

"One would understand (an opposition to) Uttar Pradesh," he added, as per Livelaw.

Supreme Court Seeks Clarification From a Calcutta High Court Judge Regarding a TV Interview

Meanwhile, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, sought clarification from Calcutta High Court’s Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay amid allegations of him having given an interview to a TV channel regarding TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee. A matter pertaining to Banerjee is being presently heard by the judge, reported Bar and Bench.

According to media reports, the top court said in its order:

"The petitioner has annexed a translated transcript of an interview of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on a TV Channel ABP Ananda. Registrar General of Calcutta HC is directed to clarify from the judge as to whether he had been interviewed by Mr Suman De. The registrar general is directed to file his affidavit before this court on or before Friday. We'll list on Friday.”

And Patna HC Stays Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi

Meanwhile, Patna High Court reportedly stayed proceedings against Rahul Gandhi till 16 May. This is in connection with the criminal defamation case filed against him by BJP’s Sushil Modi.

Gandhi had recently moved the Patna High Court and sought a quashing of the summons issued by a Patna Court on the grounds that this case leads to what is legally referred to as “double jeopardy.”

Read more about what ‘double jeopardy’ entails and the case against Rahul Gandhi here.