Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed listing of pleas, which have raised the issue relating to the practice of political parties promising freebies, before a three-judge bench.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said it was argued before it that the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the matter of S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others required reconsideration.
"Looking into the complexities of the issues involved and the prayer to overrule the judgement rendered by a two-judge bench of this court in Subramaniam Balaji, we direct listing of the set of petitions before a three-judge bench after obtaining the orders from the Chief Justice of India," the bench said.
The top court said these pleas would be listed after four weeks.
In the 2013 judgement, the apex court had noted that after examining and considering the parameters laid in section 123 of the Representation of People Act, it arrived at a conclusion that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice.

3-judge SC bench to look into pleas challenging freebie by political parties

A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said it was argued before it that the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench required reconsideration.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed listing of pleas, which have raised the issue relating to the practice of political parties promising freebies, before a three-judge bench.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said it was argued before it that the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the matter of S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others required reconsideration.
"Looking into the complexities of the issues involved and the prayer to overrule the judgement rendered by a two-judge bench of this court in Subramaniam Balaji, we direct listing of the set of petitions before a three-judge bench after obtaining the orders from the Chief Justice of India," the bench said.
The top court said these pleas would be listed after four weeks.
In the 2013 judgement, the apex court had noted that after examining and considering the parameters laid in section 123 of the Representation of People Act, it arrived at a conclusion that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice.
ALSO WATCH: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hate-speech-involving-yogi-adityanath-sc-dismisses-plea-against-hc-order-1661494176887">'Hate speech' involving Yogi Adityanath: SC dismisses plea against HC order</a>

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea seeking a review of the PMLA verdict which upheld the Enforcement Directorate's powers, including those relating to arrest, and sought response from the Centre on the issue.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said prima facie two issues, including not providing Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), requires reconsideration.  The top court on Wednesday had allowed an application of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking an open court hearing of his petition to review the top court's last month's verdict upholding the sweeping powers of the ED relating to arrest, investigation, and attachment of property under the PMLA Act.
In its July 27 verdict, the apex court has said that the direction under Section 8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed should be an exception and not a rule.
Section 8(4) allows the ED to take possession of the attached property at the stage of confirmation of provisional attachment made by the adjudicating authority.

SC notice to Centre on plea seeking review of PMLA verdict 

A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said prima facie two issues, including not providing Enforcement Case Information Report, requires reconsideration.  

A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said prima facie two issues, including not providing Enforcement Case Information Report, requires reconsideration. &nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea seeking a review of the PMLA verdict which upheld the Enforcement Directorate's powers, including those relating to arrest, and sought response from the Centre on the issue.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said prima facie two issues, including not providing Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), requires reconsideration. &nbsp;The top court on Wednesday had allowed an application of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking an open court hearing of his petition to review the top court's last month's verdict upholding the sweeping powers of the ED relating to arrest, investigation, and attachment of property under the PMLA Act.
In its July 27 verdict, the apex court has said that the direction under Section 8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed should be an exception and not a rule.
Section 8(4) allows the ED to take possession of the attached property at the stage of confirmation of provisional attachment made by the adjudicating authority.
ALSO WATCH: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/here-s-what-you-need-to-know-about-sc-hearing-on-pleas-against-its-money-laundering-order-1661394202341">Here's what you need to know about SC hearing on pleas against its 'money laundering' order</a>

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure over a Delhi Police affidavit filed in connection with alleged hate speeches made during an event held here and directed it to file a “better affidavit”.
Delhi Police had told the top court that no specific words against any community were uttered at an event organised here by the Hindu Yuva Vahini' on December 19 last year.
A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka gave two weeks to the Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj to seek instructions and file a "better affidavit" by May 4.
"The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police. We hope he has understood the nuances. Has he merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied mind. Is it your stand as well or the reproduction of inquiry report of sub inspector level officer?" the bench asked.
"The ASG seeks time to get instructions from authorities to file a better affidavit... Two weeks time prayed for. List this matter on May 9. Better affidavit be filed on or before May 4,” it said.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and former Patna High Court judge and senior advocate Anjana Prakash, who have also sought a direction for an "independent, credible and impartial investigation" by an SIT into incidents of hate speeches against the Muslim community.

SC tells Delhi Police on Dharamsansad plea: has the officer applied his mind, file 'better affidavit'

Justices A M Khanwilkar who was a part of two judge bench asked the Delhi Police's lawyer has the police officer who submitted the affidavit merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind?

TOP COURT PULLS UP DELHI POLICE
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Expressing its displeasure over a Delhi Police affidavit filed in connection with alleged hate speeches made at an event in the national capital, the Supreme Court has asked the police force to file a better affidavit.&nbsp; Delhi Police had told the top court that no specific words against any community were uttered at the Hindu Yuva Vahini' event on December 19 last year. Justice A M Khanwilkar&nbsp;who was a part of two judge bench&nbsp;asked&nbsp;the Delhi Police's lawyer has the police officer who submitted the affidavit merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind? The top court was&nbsp;hearing a petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and former Patna High Court judge and senior advocate Anjana Prakash, who have also sought a direction for an "independent, credible and impartial investigation" by an SIT into incidents of hate speeches against the Muslim community.

Justices A M Khanwilkar&nbsp;who was a part of two judge bench&nbsp;asked&nbsp;the Delhi Police's lawyer has the police officer who submitted the affidavit merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied his mind?

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure over a Delhi Police affidavit filed in connection with alleged hate speeches made during an event held here and directed it to file a &ldquo;better affidavit&rdquo;.
Delhi Police had told the top court that no specific words against any community were uttered at an event organised here by the Hindu Yuva Vahini' on December 19 last year.
A bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka gave two weeks to the Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj to seek instructions and file a "better affidavit" by May 4.
"The affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police. We hope he has understood the nuances. Has he merely reproduced the inquiry report or applied mind. Is it your stand as well or the reproduction of inquiry report of sub inspector level officer?" the bench asked.
"The ASG seeks time to get instructions from authorities to file a better affidavit... Two weeks time prayed for. List this matter on May 9. Better affidavit be filed on or before May 4,&rdquo; it said.
The top court was&nbsp;hearing a petition filed by journalist Qurban Ali and former Patna High Court judge and senior advocate Anjana Prakash, who have also sought a direction for an "independent, credible and impartial investigation" by an SIT into incidents of hate speeches against the Muslim community.
ALSO WATCH:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/local/3rd-time-in-5-months-yati-narsinghanand-accused-of-hate-speech-again-una-after-haridwar-delhi-1650218212142">3rd time in 5 months: Yati Narsinghanand accused of hate speech again; Una after Haridwar, Delhi</a>

As five states head to polls, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Narendra Modi government seeking their response to a plea seeking a direction to seize the election symbol or de-register a political party that promises or distributes 'irrational freebies' from public funds before elections.
Noting that it was a serious issue and the budget for freebies goes beyond the regular budget, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli observed that ‘even though it is not a corrupt practice but it creates a uneven playing field’.
The PIL filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay cites the Aam Aadmi Party’s promise of Rs 1,000 per month to every woman aged 18, ahead of the Punjab polls. It also states examples like Shiromani Akali Dal  and Congress to target the women voters.
Justice Kohli remarked that the petitioner has been selective in naming the political parties in his petition. The CJI too noted that the petitioner has named only two parties in his affidavit.
Last week, the Supreme Court had said it would consider listing for hearing a plea seeking a direction to the EC to ensure that political parties publish details regarding criminal cases of candidates along with the reason for their selection on their websites.

'Creates a uneven playing field': SC notice to Centre, EC on election freebies

Creates a uneven playing field: SC notice to Centre, EC on election freebies

SC notice to EC&nbsp;&amp; Centre over plea against poll freebies
Not corrupt practice, but it creates uneven playing field: SC
PIL: de-register parties which&nbsp;spend public funds on&nbsp;freebies
PIL&nbsp;filed by&nbsp;BJP&nbsp;leader against AAP, SAD and Congress
Selective naming by petitioner in PIL: CJI&nbsp;bench observers

Justice Kohli remarked that the petitioner has been selective in naming the political parties in his petition. The CJI&nbsp;too&nbsp;noted that the petitioner has named only two parties in his affidavit.

As five states head to polls, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Narendra Modi government seeking their response to a plea&nbsp;seeking a direction to seize the election symbol or de-register a political party that promises or distributes 'irrational freebies' from public funds before elections.
Noting that it was a serious issue and the budget for freebies goes beyond the regular budget, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli observed that &lsquo;even though it is not a corrupt practice but it creates a uneven playing field&rsquo;.
The PIL filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay cites the Aam Aadmi Party&rsquo;s promise of Rs 1,000 per month to every woman aged 18, ahead of the Punjab polls. It also states examples like&nbsp;Shiromani Akali Dal&nbsp;and Congress to target the women voters.
Also Watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/elections/plea-against-evms-sc-may-hear-pil-as-state-polls-loom-closer-1642643822139" target="_blank">Plea against EVMs: SC may hear PIL as state polls loom closer</a>
Justice Kohli remarked that the petitioner has been selective in naming the political parties in his petition. The CJI&nbsp;too&nbsp;noted that the petitioner has named only two parties in his affidavit.
Last week, the Supreme Court had said it would consider listing for hearing a plea seeking a direction to the EC to ensure that political parties publish details regarding criminal cases of candidates along with the reason for their selection on their websites.

Anil Ghanwat, one of the members of the Supreme Court-appointed panel on farm laws, on Tuesday wrote to Chief Justice of India, urging him to consider releasing the report on the three agri laws in the public domain at the earliest or authorise the committee to do so.
Ghanwat, also a senior leader of Shetkari Sangathan, said he will mobilise one lakh farmers and bring them to Delhi in the next couple of months demanding farm reforms.       In the letter dated November 23 written to Chief Justice of India, Ghanwat said after the government's decision to repeal the three farm laws in the coming Winter Session of Parliament, the panel's report is "no longer relevant" but the recommendations are of great public interest.       "The report can also play an educational role and ease the misappropriations of many farmers who have, in my opinion, been misguided by some leaders....," he said.       The three-member panel had submitted the report to the apex court on March 19. Since then, the report has not been made public.

SC-appointed panel member writes to CJI urging early release of report on farm laws

Anil Ghanwat, one of the members of the Supreme Court-appointed panel on farm laws, on Tuesday wrote to Chief Justice of India, urging him to consider releasing the report on the three free&nbsp;laws in the public domain at the earliest or authorise the committee to do so.
Ghanwat, also a senior leader of Shetkari Sangathan, said he will mobilise one lakh farmers and bring them to Delhi in the next couple of months demanding farm reforms. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
In the letter dated November 23 written to Chief Justice of India, Ghanwat said after the government's decision to repeal the three farm laws in the coming Winter Session of Parliament, the panel's report is "no longer relevant" but the recommendations are of great public interest. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
He said the report can also play an educational role and ease the misappropriations of many farmers who have, in my opinion, been misguided by some leaders. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
The three-member panel had submitted the report to the apex court on March 19. Since then, the report has not been made public.

Ghanwat said after the government's decision to repeal the three farm laws in the coming Winter Session of Parliament, the panel's report is "no longer relevant" but the recommendations are of great public interest. &nbsp;

Anil Ghanwat, one of the members of the Supreme Court-appointed panel on farm laws, on Tuesday wrote to Chief Justice of India, urging him to consider releasing the report on the three agri laws in the public domain at the earliest or authorise the committee to do so.
Ghanwat, also a senior leader of Shetkari Sangathan, said he will mobilise one lakh farmers and bring them to Delhi in the next couple of months demanding farm reforms. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
 In the letter dated November 23 written to Chief Justice of India, Ghanwat said after the government's decision to repeal the three farm laws in the coming Winter Session of Parliament, the panel's report is "no longer relevant" but the recommendations are of great public interest. &nbsp;
Also Watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/farm-laws-repealed-congress-to-hold-victory-rallies-across-india-today-1637377893446">Farm laws repealed: Congress to hold victory rallies across India today &nbsp;</a> &nbsp; "The report can also play an educational role and ease the misappropriations of many farmers who have, in my opinion, been misguided by some leaders....," he said. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The three-member panel had submitted the report to the apex court on March 19. Since then, the report has not been made public.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said on Thursday that the Supreme Court will set up an expert committee to inquire into alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus for mounting surveillance on Indian citizens.
The CJI heads the bench which is looking at a clutch of petitions that have demanded a court-monitored investigation into alleged use of Pegasus spyware for unlawful snooping.
Justice Ramana informed senior advocate CU Singh about constitution of a committee during the hearing of an unconnected matter. Singh represents one of the petitioners in the bouquet of cases on Pegasus. &ldquo;Please tell other lawyers too that we will pass our order next week,&rdquo; the CJI told Singh.
The court had, on September 13, reserved its order in the case after the Union government declined to make public whether its agencies used the Israeli software.
&nbsp;

SC to set up an expert panel to inquire into Pegasus row, order next week

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said on Thursday that the Supreme Court will set up an expert committee to inquire into alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus for mounting surveillance on Indian citizens.

The CJI heads the bench which is looking at a clutch of petitions that have demanded a court-monitored investigation into alleged use of Pegasus spyware for unlawful snooping.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said on Thursday that the Supreme Court will set up an expert committee to inquire into alleged use of <a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/pegasus-row-defence-ministry-says-no-transactions-with-israeli-firm-1628511317394">Israeli spyware Pegasus</a> for mounting surveillance on Indian citizens.
The CJI heads the bench which is looking at a clutch of petitions that have demanded a court-monitored investigation into alleged use of<a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/allegations-serious-if-reports-are-true-supreme-court-on-pegasus-row-1628149339313"> Pegasus spyware for unlawful snooping.</a>
<a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/news-guru-pegasus-project-the-politics-of-surveillance-1627050711354">Justice Ramana</a> informed senior advocate CU Singh about constitution of a committee during the hearing of an unconnected matter. Singh represents one of the petitioners in the bouquet of cases on Pegasus. &ldquo;Please tell other lawyers too that we will pass our order next week,&rdquo; the CJI told Singh.
The court had, on September 13, reserved its order in the case after the Union government declined to make public whether its agencies used the Israeli software.
<a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/news-guru-pegasus-project-the-politics-of-surveillance-1627050711354" target="_blank">ALSO WATCH:&nbsp;News Guru | Pegasus Project &amp; the politics of surveillance</a>

sc asks centre

Categories