In reaction to how Miranda House had been featured in the trailer for Ziddi Girls, the administration of the college has filed a police complaint as well as issued a legal notice to the makers of the web series. According to a Times of India report.

The upcoming web series Ziddi Girls is based in a fictional college called Matilda House referred to as MH in the series. Shooting was done at Delhi University's Miranda House, popularly referred to as MH, by alumna Shonali Bose. The first trailer was criticized by college authorities, the student union, and alumni, who called it a "defamatory and inaccurate representation of the college."

Producers' response

In the original trailer, a voiceover is done by saying, "Aaj MH mein padhai nahi, porn chalta hai." (Today at MH, there's no studying. It's all about porn). In response to the outrage, the producers put out a follow-up trailer with a disclaimer: "This series is a work of fiction. It's based on a fictional institution and characters. It's not intended to defame any person, organization or educational institution. Viewer's discretion is advised."

Even as they recognized the second trailer as more "balanced," college officials continued to demand the removal of the original controversial trailer and ask for a preview of the series immediately before its public release. They have officially sent three main demands to the director and producer:

1. Elimination of the objectionable trailer.
2. Halting the use of the acronym MH for the fictional institution.
3. Provision of an urgent preview of the series before its release.

The Supreme Court in a historic decision ruled in favor of the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Education Act, providing great relief to the thousands of students attending madrassas across the state. The judgment is annulling the earlier verdict delivered by the Allahabad High Court, which had ruled the Act unconstitutional and created uncertainty regarding the future of education for the students.

Students are both relieved and concerned by the Supreme Court's decision regarding the UP Madrassa Education Act. Citing inconsistencies with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, the court invalidated clauses pertaining to higher education degrees even though it affirmed the Act's constitutionality. By guaranteeing academic continuity, this ruling reassures madrassa students that their degrees and study are still valid. However, concerns over future academic and professional opportunities are raised by the omission of higher education options. Madrassa graduates may have trouble going to college or finding employment in the formal sector if they are not recognized by the UGC, which could affect their long-term prospects.

Particularly for religious and minority organizations, the ruling is being hailed as a turning point in the realm of education. The fact that the state's madrassa education infrastructure is still in existence is comforting to parents, students, and madrassa administrators.

According to legal experts, the decision strikes a balance between avoiding inconsistencies with federal higher education laws and the necessity for state supervision. Education experts contend that the government must now intervene to provide madrassa students who want to pursue higher education with alternate routes.

Now that the Supreme Court's decision has settled the current legal debate, attention is shifting to how the UGC and state governments will address the issue of higher education recognition. The ruling has spurred discussion about potential policy modifications to better integrate madrassa education into the system as a whole.

The Supreme Court has urged the Indian government to create guidelines for social media content regulation, addressing issues of hate speech, misinformation, and national security threats. The court recommends revisiting the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to enhance regulatory provisions and create a safer internet space for Indian users.

In a major development, the Supreme Court of India has demanded more stringent controls over social media content, expressing fears about the unregulated dissemination of hate speech, false news, and possible threats to national security. The court's order comes in the backdrop of the high-profile Allahabadia case, which highlighted the need for more stringent regulation of online platforms.

The Supreme Court has called upon the government to revisit and amend the current laws, especially the Information Technology Act, of 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The aim is to implement stricter measures that will be able to hold social media companies liable for the content they host.

If adopted, the suggested regulatory initiatives would have significant implications for the likes of YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X (previously Twitter). Tighter compliance procedures may result in more stringent content moderation rules, heightened scrutiny of user-generated material, and possible penalties for non-compliance.

Legal professionals are of the view that regulation is needed but has to be a balance between free speech and ethical online debate. The Supreme Court ruling has also initiated debates among policymakers, social media platforms, and civil rights organizations. Whereas supporters of regulation hold that unfettered social media content generates misinformation and social unrest, others caution against overregulation that will quell free speech.

The government will likely consider amending the current IT laws and adding new content monitoring mechanisms. The court has also recommended more accountability from social media sites, pushing them to actively detect and delete objectionable content before it reaches a wide audience.

With India traversing the intricate terrain of social media regulation, the intervention of the Supreme Court is a watershed moment for digital regulation. Whether this translates into tighter controls or a balance of online free speech will depend on the reactions of the government and stakeholders to the court's appeal.

Despite mounting privacy concerns among parents, educators, and advocacy groups, a federal judge has ruled in favor of Doge Team, an Elon Musk-funded education platform, permitting it to access and collect student data.

The move, announced on February 17, lets Doge Team collect and review students' academic records, internet browsing activity, and other personal data to strengthen its AI-based learning platform. While proponents claim this will revolutionize adaptive education, opponents caution about significant privacy hazards and data abuse.

Doge Team is an AI-based learning platform that uses machine learning algorithms and monitoring of data in real- to optimize student learning outcomes. According to the site, it provides performance data, adaptive learning tools, and personalized study plans to help students reach their maximum potential.

However, because of its data-based strategy, which requires unrestricted access to student data, there are now significant ethical and security concerns. Privacy organizations and academic institutions have strongly opposed the new verdict, raising concerns about serious dangers connected to the gathering and use of student data. 

A pernicious precedent has been created by this ruling, allowing corporations to extract student data under the guise of 'enhancing education.' Once that door is opened, it is hard for the uses to which such data is put to be policed," is stated by Lena Thompson, director of the Digital Privacy Alliance.

The federal judge determined that Doge Team's collection methods of data adhere to federal education statutes, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which regulates the access and use of student records. Legal professionals point out that this reading of FERPA potentially undermines student privacy protections, setting the stage for additional education technology platforms to require similar access.

The ruling will be challenged and legislated against, advocacy groups are already demanding more control over student data use. Simultaneously, Doge Team has said that it is working to develop its platform further and add new AI-based learning functionalities, sparking more controversy regarding technology in schools.