5th march 2024

1. The State Bank of India has asked the Supreme Court for an extension till the 30 th of
June in order to comply with the judgement made on Electoral Bonds in Association
for Democratic Reforms and Anr. v. Union of India Cabinet Secretary & Ors.
Directing the bank to provide details of all electoral bonds that have been encashed
from April 2019.
In an application filed just before the court mandated deadline of Wednesday, 6 th of
March, the public sector bank through Advocate Sanjay Kapur has stressed certain
practical difficulties in completing the exercise.
SBI has stated that re matching of the data would now be a task requiring a significant
amount of effort.
2. The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently remarked that since mathematical equations
and science subjects are a matter of fact and laws of nature, each and every person is
authorised to use them without any fear of copyright infringement in Addala
Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh.
Justice V Sujatha thus concluded that academic or non-literary books even if pirated
by a publisher, would be protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act which states
that certain acts of fair use would not amount to infringement of copyright under the
law.
The Court looked into the provisions of the Copyright Act to decide whether the
books published by the petitioner would be protected under the exceptions to the
copyright infringement.
It observed that the law unequivocally prescribes that there is no copyright except as
provided in the Act, meaning that copyright stands converted from a natural or
common law right to a statutory right.
The Court further said that Section 13 of the Copyright Act states that only “original”
literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works are the subject matter of copyright.
In the present case, the Court found the books in question to be of non-literary nature
and therefore concluded that they would not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the
Copyright Act.
Thus, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and directed
the authorities to not interfere with the legitimate business operations of the petitioner
under the guise of the government order.
3. The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has released a slew
of guidelines urging media platforms to disseminate information regarding the
LGBTQIA+ community with sensitivity and objectivity.

NBDSA Chairperson Justice (retd) AK Sikri directed India Today to expunge

objectionable remarks made against the community in a broadcast or remove the
video totally within seven days. One of the guidelines issued in the order stated,

"Broadcasters must avoid broadcasting any news which sensationalizes the issues
related to LGBTQIA+ community, perpetuates stereotypes or creates undue fear in
respect of the community."

4. In the case of Abhinav Kiran Sekhon Versus State of Punjab and Another, The
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the discharge of a probationary
judicial officer, who travelled to Doha and the United Kingdom in 2019 without any
official permission A division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and
Justice Lapita Banerji remarked that an officer who repeatedly commits acts of
insubordination or suppression during the period of probation would continue with
such behaviour after probation. Such conduct would set a bad example for the judicial
officers and would not at all be desirable, the bench said.

Sekhon had qualified the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Judicial Examination, 2015 and
was appointed to the service in 2016. He was serving as a Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at the time of his removal in 2021.

His main contention before the High Court was that his service automatically stood
confirmed after three years as a probationer and thus, he could not have been removed
without proper disciplinary proceedings. After examining various cases cited by the
petitioner, the Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rule stating so,
there can be no deemed confirmation and even if the period of probation is stipulated,
a letter of confirmation is required before confirmation of service.

On merits, the Court remarked that the conduct of the petitioner clearly rendered him
unsuitable as a judicial officer.