Actor Ramya files complaint after threats from Darshan fans
'As a celebrity, I am used to trolling, but I haven't experienced it to this extent," Ramya told reporters after filing her complaint at the Police Commissioner's office here.
She said she had shared a report on the Supreme Court's proceedings in the Renukaswamy murder case on July 24, 'demanding justice" for the victim's family. Actor Darshan is a prime suspect in the case.
'The Supreme Court questioned the bail given to actor Darshan by the (Karnataka) High Court. I just put out the newspaper coverage of it, saying that 'Supreme Court is a ray of hope for the common people of India, and I hope there will be justice for Renukaswamy'. Darshan stans started trolling me immediately," she said.
Ramya said the abuse included murder and rape threats, as well as 'very sexual and vulgar messages".
'The trolling was so bad that I started to think if the situation is like this for me (a star), what would it be like for normal girls. This is why I came here to file the complaint," she said.
She added that if women do not speak up, instances of harassment will only increase.
'I thought to myself that it's about time that someone takes some action, because it just reflects on how low society has fallen," she claimed.
Ramya said her complaint has been accepted and forwarded to the cybercrime department. 'I was promised due justice," she added.
She said she had filed complaints against 43 accounts. 'There were a lot more, but then I just pulled out the ones that were really, really obscene," she said.
She also expressed gratitude for the support she received from the State Women's Commission and the film body, Film Industry for Rights and Equality (FIRE).
'I am eternally grateful for their help, because I never reached out to them asking for help. They've come forward by themselves and supported me. I think in times like this, you can be courageous enough to fight alone, but if you get support, it just gives you more motivation to fight," she added.
Ramya claimed that Darshan had not reached out to her.
'Two years ago, too, I flagged messages from his fans. Darshan had not reacted even then. They were not targeting me specifically, but they were targeting (actor) Yash, his wife, his family, (actor) Sudeep, his wife, and his family. It was so obscene; their children were being targeted," she alleged.
Although she had posted about it, she did not file an official complaint at the time. 'I wish I did it then too. Maybe, this Renukaswamy incident wouldn't have happened," she added.
Ramya said celebrities must lead by example. 'Tell your fans not to send vulgar or obscene messages," she insisted. PTI JR SSK
view comments
First Published:
July 28, 2025, 20:45 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Juveniles, age of consent and justice: Explaining the wide conviction gap
An analysis of government data in the Supreme Court reveals a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing sharp focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. According to the Union government's latest submission to the Supreme Court, between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under Pocso, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63% . The statistics form part of the Centre's written submissions opposing any move to lower the age of consent under the Pocso Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the top court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. However, the wide gap between the registration of cases and convictions suggests that while these laws aim to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, they may also be pulling large numbers of adolescents and young people (mostly men) into the criminal justice system, often in cases involving consensual relationships that turn adversarial due to family or societal pressure. Convictions and sentencing For juveniles (16-18 years), Pocso convictions rose modestly from 144 in 2018 to 213 in 2022 even as the number of detentions rose from 844 to 1,757, which implies a conviction rate of just 12.12% in 2022. The majority received prison terms of up to 10 years. Life imprisonment was awarded in only 31 cases across five years, and there was no death penalty. For the same group, rape convictions remained flat, ranging from 83 to 110 per year, with over 85% receiving sentences of up to 10 years. Only eight juveniles, tried as adults under the pertinent legal provisions, received life terms during this period. Among young adults in the 18-22 years age group, convictions under Pocso grew from 1,213 in 2018 to 1,312 in 2022. However, even this increase is modest considering the scale of bookings under the Act. While 8,740 persons were apprehended in 2018, 13,068 were arrested in 2022. That translates to conviction rates of 13.88% in 2018 and 10.04% in 2022 under Pocso. Additionally, rape convictions dropped from 620 in 2018 to 476 in 2022, reflecting a 23.23% decline despite higher arrest figures. Life imprisonment was more common in this age group. 773 individuals received life terms for Pocso offences, while 238 did so for rape. A total of 22 young adults were awarded the death penalty over the five years, compared to just one juvenile. These statistics emerge at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation examining whether the blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity below the age of 18 under the Pocso Act requires re-examination. The law, enacted in 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 and makes even consensual acts between teenagers prosecutable. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amici curiae in the 2012 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena, have argued that the mandatory reporting requirement and lack of a close-in-age exception is leading to over-criminalisation, infringing on the autonomy, privacy, and health rights of adolescents, particularly girls. But the Union government has pushed back, telling the court that 'any dilution of the age of consent, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' In a recently filed affidavit, It has urged the court to uphold the 'bright-line' age of 18 to deter abuse and exploitation. Numbers suggest a need for nuance Data suggests that many of those convicted are themselves just a few years older than the complainants. The tables submitted by the government highlight that young men aged 18–22 are the most prosecuted group under Pocso, raising concerns that the protective intent of the law is being applied to penalise consensual relationships. For example, in 2022, 213 juveniles (16-18) were convicted under Pocso whereas 1,312 young adults (18-22) were convicted under the same Act -- over six times higher. Rape convictions for 18-22-year-olds (476) were also significantly higher than for juveniles (92). The sentencing trends further bolster the case for a more differentiated approach. A vast majority of both juveniles and young adults received sentences below 10 years, suggesting courts may be exercising discretion when faced with such cases, but only after the accused have undergone lengthy trials and detention. A legal and social dilemma The Centre's firm position against creating a 'close-in-age' exception, such as exempting consensual acts between teens aged 16-18, comes amid growing calls for a calibrated rethink. Several high courts, and even Supreme Court benches in bail and quashing proceedings, have flagged the problem of criminalising teenage love. Yet, the government has maintained that 'loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse under the guise of consensual activity,' and that the law must 'act as a strong deterrent… in a society where children, especially girls, are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and abuse.' At the heart of the debate lies the challenge of balancing protection with autonomy, ensuring minors are not exploited, while also preventing a legal system from punishing consensual and developmental relationships among peers. In her written submissions countering the Centre's stance, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and that increasing it to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase,' stated her submissions, adding the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended. Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals. 'Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious or inter-caste relationships,' she said. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Jaising's submissions added. The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to read into the impugned legal provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter next month, the numbers paint a sobering picture : thousands of adolescents and young adults are caught in the legal net each year, but only a fraction are ultimately held guilty, often after years of litigation. Whether this calls for legislative reform or judicial steps may now be for the court to decide but the data offers compelling reason to confront the unintended consequences of the current regime.
Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Bolsonaro under house arrest after Brazil Supreme Court crackdown — will Trump hit Brazil with tougher sanctions as Lula defies US pressure?
Synopsis Bolsonaro under house arrest is the latest twist in Brazil's growing political storm. Former President Jair Bolsonaro was placed under house arrest by the Brazil Supreme Court for breaking court orders in an ongoing coup investigation. The dramatic move follows earlier U.S. sanctions, including 50% tariffs, already imposed by President Donald Trump in support of Bolsonaro. Now, tensions are rising fast as Trump considers tougher action while President Lula defies U.S. pressure and defends Brazil's judicial independence. AP Bolsonaro under house arrest — a phrase that has suddenly shaken Brazil and caught global attention. On August 4, the former Brazilian president was placed under strict house arrest by the country's Supreme Court for violating legal orders tied to an alleged coup attempt. But the drama doesn't stop there. U.S. President Donald Trump, who had already slapped Brazil with heavy 50% tariffs in support of Bolsonaro, is now considering even tougher sanctions. Meanwhile, President Lula is standing firm, openly defying U.S. pressure as he backs Brazil's judiciary. Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president, has officially been placed under house arrest by the Brazil Supreme Court, marking a dramatic turning point in the country's deepening political crisis. The arrest order, issued on August 4, 2025, comes as part of a sweeping investigation into Bolsonaro's alleged role in trying to overturn the 2022 election results. But beyond Brazil's borders, the decision has triggered international tensions — particularly with the United States, where President Donald Trump has already imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and is now signaling even tougher sanctions may be on the way. The house arrest order was issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a key figure in Brazil's top court. Bolsonaro, who lost the 2022 election to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is under investigation for allegedly attempting to stage a coup and incite unrest in an effort to overturn the results. According to the court, Bolsonaro violated multiple court-imposed conditions: Refused to wear an electronic ankle monitor Maintained indirect contact with allies under investigation Continued influencing supporters through social media intermediaries and public appearances The court also ordered that all communication devices in his residence be seized and restricted visits to only lawyers and court-authorized individuals. Even before this house arrest, Donald Trump had taken Brazil's legal actions against Bolsonaro personally. Earlier in 2025, Trump's administration imposed a sweeping 50% tariff on major Brazilian exports like steel, soy, and meat, claiming the actions against Bolsonaro were 'political persecution.' Now, following the house arrest, the White House is reportedly reviewing options to hit Brazil with additional penalties—from financial restrictions to potential blacklisting of more officials involved in the case. Trump has repeatedly voiced support for Bolsonaro, calling him 'a patriot' and warning Brazil not to 'abandon democracy in the name of revenge.' President Lula da Silva, who returned to office in 2023, has strongly defended the independence of Brazil's judiciary. He has pushed back against Trump's claims and refused to interfere in the court's decision. In recent remarks, Lula stated: 'No nation, no leader, has the right to dictate how we uphold justice in Brazil.' Despite the economic risks, Lula has so far defied U.S. pressure, choosing to support the court's process rather than bow to Trump's political demands. His government has also been working with European Union diplomats to build new trade partnerships that could offset some of the U.S. pressure. With Bolsonaro's house arrest now official, there is growing speculation in Washington and Brasília that Trump may move beyond tariffs. Potential escalations include: Cutting access to U.S. financing or investment deals Suspending diplomatic exchanges Blocking joint defense projects or trade agreements Some insiders say Trump is considering a full suspension of Brazil's trade privileges, depending on how the situation develops in the coming weeks. This could deepen the rift between the two major economies and reshape the future of U.S.–Brazil relations. At home, Bolsonaro's house arrest has sparked mixed reactions. His supporters have begun staging protests, claiming political persecution. On the other hand, many Brazilians — including lawmakers and civil society leaders — are applauding the move as a step toward protecting democracy and ensuring that no leader is above the law. Internationally, the growing U.S.–Brazil standoff is likely to push Lula closer to new strategic partners like China, Russia, and the BRICS alliance, where he may find more sympathetic allies. If Trump continues to apply pressure, Brazil could pivot away from traditional Western alliances in search of economic independence and political leverage. Bolsonaro's legal team has already confirmed plans to appeal the house arrest order, but the case itself is still moving forward. If convicted, Bolsonaro could face decades in prison and be permanently barred from holding office again. For now, the former president remains at his residence under strict legal supervision, as Brazil enters one of the most consequential chapters in its modern democratic history. Q1: Why is Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest in Brazil? He broke court rules while facing trial for trying to overturn the 2022 election. Q2: Has Trump already imposed sanctions on Brazil over Bolsonaro's arrest? Yes, Trump imposed 50% tariffs and may now add tougher sanctions.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In motor accidents, claims not restricted to third party, says SC
New Delhi: Motor vehicle insurance protects a policyholder against claims made by a third party for damages due to the policyholder's actions, but what about the claim against injury/death of the policyholder themselves in a road accident? Holding that family members of such a policyholder can also claim compensation, Supreme Court has referred the issue to a larger bench since there are contradictory verdicts of the apex court on the matter. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl who lost both her parents in a car accident in which her father was on the driving seat, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, as it is a special provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the Act but also any other law in force for the time being. In this case, the minor was awarded compensation by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured party. The bench said: "... a claim under section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, according to us covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident. This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy". The insurance company, however, took the stand that the petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient of the compensation. "It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault liability claims, the compensation for which is restricted to the structured formula under the IInd Schedule. It is a beneficial piece of legislation brought in, keeping in mind the enhanced chances of an accident, resulting from the prevalence of vehicles in the overcrowded roads of today. It was a social security scheme, brought about considering the need for a more comprehensive scheme of 'no-fault' liability for reasons of the ever-increasing instances of motor vehicle accidents and the difficulty in proving rash and negligent driving," the bench said.
