- ticket title
- Supreme Court Directed To Install CCTV Cameras In Courts, Says There Is No Need For Privacy
- Call for papers: Law Mantra Journal (ISSN: 2394-7829) for Vol. 5, Issue 4 and 5;Submit before 20th Dec,2017
- ICC/KLRCA Pre-Moot for the Willem C. Vis Moot Arbitration Competition [March 2-4, Malaysia]: Register by Jan 31
- Ayn Rand Institute’s Annual Essay Contests: Cash Prizes of Rs. 84 Lakhs: Submit by May 1,15
- UPES’ 3rd National Litigation Workshop on Criminal Law [Dec 11–15, Dehradun]: Register by Dec 2
A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta agreed to examine the plea for setting up of a regulatory mechanism for internet-based service providers after it was alleged that some of the companies are foreign-based and were not willing to come within the jurisdiction of Indian courts.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, contended that companies did not carry out background checks on their drivers, making the commuters vulnerable and there should be a proper mechanism to regulate the companies. She informed the court that Uber had recently been banned in London.
The bench asked additional solicitor general PinkyAnand to examine the issue and respond on measures to be taken to ensure safety and security of commuters.
“The issue will be taken up on December 7,” it said.
In India, cab aggregators have long argued that they only provide the technology and platform for drivers and passengers to connect. While the companies claim they take action against drivers on receiving complaint, they are opposed to be made accountable for offences committed by drivers.
Last year, Delhi HC had directed app-based cab aggregators to furnish driver details and get records verified by police. “If someone comes to Delhi from another country and hires a taxi and if a driver commits a crime, who will be responsible? There should be some safeguards,” the court said. The SC also directed National Legal Services Authority to set up an expert panel to frame model rules for granting compensation to victims as there was no uniformity in schemes followed by states.