The Madras High Court validated a previous judgment permitting the leasing of temple land in Kolathur for building an arts and science college. The ruling was made after a division bench of Justices R Subramanian and C Kumarappan rejected an appeal filed by temple activist TR Ramesh, who had objected to the lease on the grounds of money.

The controversy was about a 2.4-acre land holding of the Somanathaswamy temple in Kolathur, which is handled by the Mylapore Kapaleeswarar temple trust. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department had put up for lease the land for 25 years at ₹3.19 lakh per month.

The writ petition, which was previously rejected by a single judge, challenged the HR&CE department's advertisement for leasing 2.4 acres of land of Somanathaswamy temple at Kolathur for a period of 25 years at a rent of Rs 3.19 lakh per month. The petitioner opposed the lease on some grounds, such as the rental value was not determined by considering the guideline value, and thus it has caused a loss of Rs 1.93 lakh per month to the temple.

Ramesh argued that the temple suffered an estimated ₹1.93 lakh a month since the rental pricing was not set according to the guideline value.Ramesh's request had previously been denied by a single-judge court, which stated that the lease was executed for a charity purpose, hence the judgment was justifiable despite possible procedural errors. The court emphasized that the basic goal of leasing out the land was not diminished by these administrative errors.

In its decision on Monday, the division bench maintained the previous order, stating that the case was not worthy of judicial intervention. The decision significantly facilitates the establishment of the institution, which will contribute to higher education.

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.