‘Ranveer Allahabadia kuch bhi bol dete hai': Ashish Chanchalani on India's Got Latent row, says police came to him first as Samay Raina, Apoorva Mukhija couldn't be found
Speaking to Faridoon Shahryar about that tumultuous period, Ashish recalled, 'So many things happened, those two months were turmoil and it was like this for everyone who was on the show. At that time, Samay was in Vancouver, they were not able to find Apoorva and she was scared also, Ranveer (Ranveer Allahbadia) also vanished, so only I was left in Bandra and the police knew where I live, so they came to me first and I had to record my statements with the police.'
Ashish expressed his frustration while reflecting on how serious the matter was. 'It might have been a clickbait, a reel for many people, but to be in front of the police and the government officials, it's very serious,' he said. When asked why he was questioned despite not making any controversial remarks, he explained, 'People will say that you didn't do anything on the show, but when you sit in front of the police and every word that you say is converted into a transcript then you realise how careful you have to be. I didn't even say anything on the show. I just laughed in one part of the show, and even that was taken into account.'
He further revealed that the authorities scrutinised every reaction, including his laughter, which he had to justify in detail. 'I had to explain to them why I laughed because there were some inside jokes going on with Samay and also, I was laughing at Ranveer's stupidity, not at the comment that he made.'
Addressing Ranveer's controversial remark that triggered the outrage, Ashish said, 'I know Ranveer from last seven years. I know that he says anything in fun and games.' He added, 'It was difficult for me, but it was very difficult for Samay, Apoorva and others.'
Following the controversy, all episodes of India's Got Latent were removed from YouTube. The Supreme Court, in a recent order, even banned Allahbadia from posting content on social media, before later revoking the ban.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
If lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply, SG Tushar Mehta tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the question whether lawyers can be summoned by probe agencies for their legal opinion while investigating their clients. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on summoning of 2 senior advocates by probe agencies while representing clients in cases. Supreme Court Bar Association president and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh referred to the 2005 judgment in the Jacob Mathew case, which dealt with FIRs against doctors in medical negligence cases and mandated a preliminary examination by an expert committee comprising doctors before registration of FIR. Singh said it can similarly be laid down that lawyers can be summoned only after approval of a magistrate court. Attorney General R Venkataramani said it will amount to giving a 'long rope. That may not be required'. He said he will submit his views including 'where the line should be drawn'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he should never be called for giving a professional opinion. He said that if a lawyer commits an offence, no exceptions should apply. Agreeing, the CJI said, 'You were referring to a lawyer advising how to dispose of a dead body or fabricate evidence. That will be covered by section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).' On the suggestion for a court approval to issue summons to lawyers, the SG said, 'Some separate regime being provided for one class of people may not withstand Article 14.' The CJI, however, pointed out that the ruling in the Jacob Mathew case also creates a separate class and asked the SG, 'Have you sought a review of the judgement?' Mehta said he was not opposing the decision in Jacob Mathew. In a note submitted to the court, the SG said, 'Whatsoever. It is unequivocally submitted that the attorney-client privilege is an important and one of the most sacrosanct principles of law and must remain so.' 'The core objective of attorney-client privilege is to promote open and frank communication, ensuring that litigants can candidly disclose all relevant information to their lawyers without fear of subsequent compelled disclosure. This uninhibited exchange is vital for advocate/lawyers to provide proper legal advice, which in turn encourages compliance with the law and facilitates effective legal representation. This protection encourages transparency in the legal advice process, fosters respect for the rule of law, and enhances the adversarial system by ensuring that parties can prepare their cases without fear. It is pertinent to note that this privilege is to protect the litigants and at the same time, confers a qualified privilege to the lawyers.' Mehta said 'lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client is a recognised statutory right under Sections 126-129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now repealed] and continues to be so under Sections 132-134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'. He added that 'if a lawyer has participated in any act which amounts to or is a subject matter of an offence, beyond his professional duty, the same law which applies to others will apply to lawyers also'.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
40 protestors detained for marching towards Parliament, let off
At least 40 people were detained on Tuesday afternoon after a group of dog lovers gathered near the Hanuman Mandir at Delhi's Connaught Place to protest against the Supreme Court order directing removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR. This is the second day in a row that animal activists have been detained for protesting against the order. Protestors were detained at Civil Lines police station and Model Town police station on Tuesday after they allegedly began marching towards the Parliament. They were subsequently released around 7-8 pm, said police, adding that no case has been registered so far. Police said Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been imposed near Parliament, and no gathering is allowed ahead of Independence Day and during the House's ongoing Monsoon Session. The Delhi Police had earlier detained and later booked 27 people late Monday for holding a protest earlier in the day against the SC order. A group of animal rights activists had given a call for a protest at Kartavya Path on Monday evening. 'We want the dogs to be protected. There are no shelter homes to accommodate so many dogs. In the end, they will throw all the dogs outside Delhi, where they will die,' a caregiver told mediapersons while being escorted away by the police. 'As many as 27 people who gathered at Kartavya Path to protest were detained on Monday evening. They were later booked for violating the prohibitory orders under Section 223 (offense of disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Kartavya Path police station,' an officer said, adding that those booked did not take permission to hold the protest. In Gurgaon, a peaceful demonstration was held at Galleria Market on Tuesday evening to protest SC order. Dozens showed up despite it being a weekday, said participants. Sapna Dutt (63), a Gurgaon-based yoga teacher, who was at the protest, said, 'We don't want animals on the streets, even dogs don't want to be on the roads. Mass sterilisations should have been held decades ago, but it wasn't done.' Sudhir Sachdeva (53), founder of Delhi-based Stand for Animals told The Indian Express, 'The centres identified in NCR will not be sufficient. If correct measures towards vaccination and sterilisation are taken, rabies and overpopulation of stray dogs can be contained. But this order of removing them from the streets is not right, and not as per law (ABC rules).'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all states to ascertain if any convict was languishing in prisons beyond the fixed term of sentence as it underlined that such prisoners would be entitled to release without seeking any further order for remission. Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: SC The order came in a petition filed by Sukhdev Yadav, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, whose life term was converted to a fixed term sentence of 20 years, without any remission, by the top court in October 2016. After the sentence period ended on March 9, Yadav's application for remission was rejected by the Delhi government. He then approached the apex court, which first granted furlough on June 26 and ordered his release on July 29. In a detailed judgment giving reasons for releasing Yadav, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan said, 'On completion of 20 years of sentence, it was wholly unnecessary to seek remission as during the period of 20 years, he was not entitled to any remission.' 'From March 9, 2025 (when he completed the 20-year sentence), he cannot be kept in jail. His continuous incarceration after March 9 till June 25 (when he was released on furlough) was illegal,' the bench held. Earlier, the Delhi government had objected to Yadav's plea for release, stating that the 20-year sentence was stipulated within the life term as a period within which he was not entitled to remission. After he had undergone this period, the Sentence Review Board (SRB), which considers remission of prisoners, refused him 'premature release' on March 28 on the ground that he has 'potential to commit crime'. The top court noticed the facts of the case and felt concerned whether such a legal interpretation was coming in the way of release of other similarly situated convicts. 'This court has held that prisoners are languishing behind bars even after being acquitted or on completion of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for their release, if not wanted in any other case,' the bench ordered. Underlining the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees life and liberty to all citizens, the bench added: 'We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case.' It further directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to communicate the list of such prisoners to the state and district legal services authority for implementation of the judgment. The bench further clarified that when a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment with an accompanying condition that such a convict shall not be entitled to remission for a 20-year period, they ought to be released on completion of the said term. However, this will be subject to the condition that other punishments for the accompanying offences run concurrently and the convict is not wanted in any other case. In such a scenario, the court held that the convict will not be required to apply for remission as the life sentence has been replaced with a sentence of 20 years without remission. Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that with the October 2016 ruling by the top court, Yadav cannot be allowed to remain in jail beyond completion of the fixed-term sentence. While releasing Yadav on July 29, the court had said: 'Once the court has quantified a sentence without remission for 20 years, there is no sentence beyond 20 years.' The bench even took exception to the Delhi government's order of March 28 denying remission, and observed: 'How can SRB sit over the judgment of this court. Once a convict has completed a sentence, he is entitled to this is the attitude of the government, then every convict will die in jail even if he has completed the sentence.' The complainant in the case Nilam Katara, the mother of Nitish Katara, had also argued and opposed Yadav's release claiming that the witnesses have been living in fear and threat to their life. Besides Sukhdev Yadav, others convicted in the 2002 murder case are Vikas Yadav, son of former parliamentarian DP Yadav, and his cousin Vishal. Katara was killed by the trio over his relationship with Vikash's sister Bharti Yadav. Both Vikas and Vishal were directed to undergo 25 years of sentence without remission.
