Rumors are the most dangerous weapons to disturb the tranquility in the country than the real law and order trouble. the rumors killed thousands of people during our partition. We saw the rumors of milk miracle, fifteen years back pouring thousands of litres of milk to Lord Ganesh. Rumors of attacks on North East people is also of the same kind. Surprisingly this time, the most popular medium of information, the internet ignited the fire. After Godra incident, In the last few years, we have not seen any incident, where a person was attacked basing on his race or religion. the racial and linguistic discrimination is on high these days in South India and the same is evident through Telangana Movements and Dravid Movements and so.the same was proved beyond doubt when most of the north east people from the southern states went back to their native place with a fear of attacks. Any way, we are to be more cautious with the spread of rumors which passed beyond the boundaries of our country.

The Government of Kashmir amended Public Safety Act. As per the new amendment, a minor cannot be detained under these provisions. The detention period also reduced from one year to 3 months in case of public disorder and to 6 months in other cases. As per the Act, any person can be detained in custody without charge and trial for 2 years.Whereas the Military forces are objecting to bring amendments to the Armed forces special powers Act by describing the condition in Kashmir region is still sensitive

The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Prakash Jha Productions and another vs. Union of India and others said that the state government cannot suspend the screening of a film already censored.
Mr. Harish Salve appearing for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government suspending the screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh. According to him, the aforesaid exercise of power of suspension of the screening of the film amounts to exercising the power of pre-censorship which is being exercised by the Government, although no such power vested on it. According to him, the said power of censorship is vested in the Central Board of Film Certification, and in the Central Government as provided for in the provisions made in The Cinematograph Act, 1952. Mr. Chandiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, who submits that after a certificate has been issued to a particular film by the Censor Board, the said film could be screened in the entire country and the order which is passed by the State Government is not anticipated as it practically prohibits screening of the film in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh. So far the contention of the State of Uttar Pradesh that the issue of reservation is a delicate issue and is to be handled carefully is concerned. The Supreme Court opined that reservation is also one of the social issues and in a vibrant democracy like ours, public discussions and debate on social issues are required and are necessary for smooth functioning of a healthy democracy. Such discussions on social issues bring in awareness which is required for effective working of the democracy. In fact, when there is public discussion and there is some dissent on these issues, an informed and better decision could be taken which becomes a positive view and helps the society to grow. The Supreme Court quashed the order of UP government to ban the screening of the film Aarakshan.

The Supreme Court of India interpreted the section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the aggrieved by confirming that prior permission from government is not required if the crime started in India.
The matrimonial atrocities by Non Resident Indians are increasing day by day and the government is taking all possible steps to put check on the menace. The plight of the bride who joins the husband in a foreign country on dependant visa is unexplainable. In one of such cases, Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, the Supreme Court of India directed the Police concerned to take up the complaint to register the case against the in-laws.
One Sunita married to a non resident Indian at Andhra Pradesh and at the time of marriage, the bridegroom demanded dowry and gold. After the marriage, they demanded additional dowry and in the year 2005, when the aggrieved joined the husband at Botswana, the harassment continued. Then the aggrieved filed a complaint to the Police in India through a letter and the same was taken into cognizance. The Accused approached the High court for quashing of the complaint basing on the legal provisions of the section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 188 of code requires prior sanction from the Central government for taking cognizance of the case, when the offence is committed outside India. The High Court has given the stay of the proceedings in the lower court. Now the Supreme Court of India dismissed the contentions of the Accused and directed the lower court to proceed with the case and clarified that the offence was committed in India and continued even in Botswana and therefore, in such cases, prior sanction of central government is not required for booking the case.

The answer is no. The students can apply their own answer sheets but not the others. The personal information and any information of a person in fiduciary relationship is exempted under Right to Information Act. Any information pertaining to the competitive position of the third party cannot be sought as the same is barred under the Act.
Few days back, the Supreme Court directed that the authorities are bound to supply the photo copies of the answer sheets to the students on application under Right to Information Act. In the judgment Pritam Rooj vs. University of Calcutta and others, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the evaluated answer sheets of a student are also covered under RTI Act. This Judgment is applicable to all public service examinations, Board examinations and University examinations and also the examinations like CA, CS etc.
With this judgment, the students are literally exploiting the opportunity in fullest in getting the copies of their answer sheets. In one of such case, an unsuccessful applicant to a competitive entrance examination to a course in Film and TV Institute of India applied for the photocopies of the answer sheets and interview board remarks of the other students. The Public Information Officer denied the same as it amounts to misuse of RTI Act. The students cannot ask the photocopies of the answer sheets of the other students but they can ask their own answer sheets.