Photo of Rinkel Singh

Senior Associate in the Dispute resolution practice at the Ahmedabad office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Rinkel specialises in civil and commercial litigation. She can be reached at rinkel.singh@cyrilshroff.com

Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

Introduction

On January 16, 2024, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,[1] (“Chandrababu Naidu Case”) wherein the pertinent question of law was relating to the interpretation of the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). The provision provides for a requirement of taking a prior approval of an appropriate authority before initiating any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act. Since the alleged offences in the instant case were committed prior to July 26, 2018 – the date on which Section 17A was incorporated vide the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018, the issues identified by the Supreme Court relate to the interpretation and ambit of the following legal questions:Continue Reading Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?

truth or illusion? - Criminal Liability of Digital Intermediaries in the age of deepfakes

Introduction

A deepfake connotes a highly realistic synthetic media of a real person, generated by an Artificial Intelligence. While a parallel can be drawn between photo-alteration technology and deepfakes, the latter is inherently disingenuous because it makes it difficult to ascertain doctoring. The gravity of leaving this technology unregulated is severe because it can be used to disseminate misinformation with drastic political, reputational and financial implications.Continue Reading Truth or Illusion? – Criminal Liability of Digital Intermediaries in the age of Deepfakes

No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? -  Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction

In the matter of Ashish Bhalla vs. State and Another[1](“Judgment”), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) has recently ruled that once an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) has been initiated, a parallel investigation by a separate investigating agency into the affairs of the company is not permissible, considering the bar under Section 212 of the 2013 Act (“Section 212”). While the Madras High Court in the matter of Ravi Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Another[2] had made similar observations to sub-clause (2) of Section 212, its application had not been sufficiently visible.Continue Reading No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? –  Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction