Omegle set out to create a space where strangers could connect online, but its journey took a dark turn. Rather than fostering positive interactions, the platform gained notoriety for attracting pedophiles who exploited its minor users. Now, the website is bowing out of the virtual stage, with founder Leif-K Brooks citing the overwhelming psychological and financial toll as the reasons for its closure. The demise of Omegle was a foreseen eventuality. The once-popular online chat platform, with a 14-year history, succumbed to its tainted reputation as a haven for pedophiles engaging with children. Several government agencies across countries had flagged it as a tool facilitating such activities, prompting investigations into multiple cases. Leif-K Brooks, the brain behind Omegle, expressed his decision to shut down the platform, acknowledging the unbearable burden of managing both its operational challenges and the fight against its misuse. In a blog statement, Brooks confessed, "A...
What happened during EWS reservation in Supreme Court? Find out all the judges' decisions in five points
The point
Three judges upheld amendment 103 of the Constitution as a reservation. At the same time, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat ruled against this reservation.
Expansion
The Supreme Court has put its stamp on the protection provided to the economically weaker section (EWS). This provision will also apply in the future. A five-judge bench decided in favor of the EWS application by 3-2. Three judges upheld amendment 103 of the Constitution as a reservation. At the same time, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat ruled against this reservation. Know the full verdict, what the judge said and what does it mean?
Which judges decided and who disagreed? Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela Trivedi ruled in favor of EWS reservation. These judges considered that this reservation is not illegal, but an opportunity to provide equal opportunities to all. He said that the amendment made regarding the reservation is in line with the purpose of the Act. Meanwhile, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave their opinion against. What did Justice Dinesh Maheshwari say?
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said in support of the EWS reservation: “We have taken care of equality. Can wealth be the only basis for providing economic security? Limitation for economic purposes is not against the basic spirit of the Act. This in no way removes the core of the memory. Justice Maheshwari upheld the amendment of Article 103 of the Constitution.
What did Justice Bela Trivedi say? Justice Bela Trivedi also supported Justice Maheshwari. He said that I agree with Justice Maheshwari's conclusion. He said SC/ST/OBC have got reservation. It cannot be added to the general category. The drafters of the constitution had talked about keeping the reservation for a while, but it continues even after 75 years.
What did Justice Pardiwala say? Justice JB Pardiwala agreed with the point made by Justice Maheshwari and Justice Bela and said, "Reservation is not an end, it is a means, it should not become a vested interest." He continued: “The reservation should not be extended forever. It is a way to benefit people on a large scale. This is why I support the amendment made for EWS reservation.
Justice Ravindra Bhat disagreed
Delivering the filing's decision on economic grounds, Justice Ravindra Bhat disagreed. He said, “One section of people belongs to SC/ST/OBC. Most of them are poor. Therefore, the 103rd Amendment is invalid. It would not be advisable to give more than 50% reservation. Sections 15(6) and 16(6) should be repealed.
The Chief Justice also upheld Justice Bhat's decision
Chief Justice UU Lalit also opposed the reservation on economic grounds. He said I agree with Justice Ravindra Bhat's decision. He said that going beyond the 50% reservation limit is against the constitution. This is against the basic spirit of the Act.
What is it, understand
The central government has made the 103rd amendment in the constitution to provide 10% reservation for economically weaker sections. The Supreme Court challenged its validity. A five-judge bench handed down the verdict on September 27. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala. The marathon hearing in the case lasted for about seven days. In this case, the petitioners and (then) Attorney General KK Venugopal and advocate Tushar Mehta presented their arguments regarding the scope of EWS. What did the applicants support?
The petitioners have said that the purpose of the reservation is to uplift the members of the society, and if poverty is the basis then SC-ST-OBC should also have that place. The EWS limit is a violation of the 50% reservation limit.
Whose side is the government on? The government also presented its position before the Supreme Court on the petitioner's claim. The government said this process is necessary to achieve equal status for the SAP sector. On behalf of the federal government, it was said that there is no harm in other classes getting reservation through this system. The said 50% quota is not a constitutional arrangement, it is based on a decision of the Supreme Court. In such a case, it would be wrong to say that the reservation cannot be given more.
Comments
Post a Comment