&w=3840&q=100)
'Why so touchy?': SC to BJP leader on Tharoor's 2018 'scorpion' remark
A Bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh remarked during the hearing, 'Let us close all these things. Why get so touchy about all this? This way, administrators and judges come in the same group and have thick skin.'
The observation came as the court heard Tharoor's appeal challenging a Delhi High Court decision that had refused to quash the defamation proceedings.
'Remark not Tharoor's own', says counsel
The controversy stems from a statement made by Tharoor at the Bangalore Literature Festival in November 2018, where he had said: 'Modi is a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.'
'I am a devotee of Lord Shiva... However, the accused (Tharoor) completely disregarded the sentiments of crores of Shiva devotees and made the statement which hurt the sentiments of all Lord Shiva devotees, both in India and outside the country,' the complaint stated.
Tharoor has clarified that the statement was not originally his. His counsel pointed out that he was quoting former Gujarat minister Gordhan Zadaphia, whose remark had been publicly circulated years earlier, including in a 2012 Caravan magazine article.
Delhi HC refused to quash proceedings
In August last year, the Delhi High Court ruled that Tharoor's comment was defamatory and tarnished the image of Prime Minister Modi, the BJP, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The court called the statement 'despicable and deplorable,' especially when directed at a sitting Prime Minister. Tharoor then moved the Supreme Court.
In September 2024, the apex court stayed trial court proceedings. The Bench noted that the statement did not originate with Tharoor and appeared metaphorical — possibly alluding to Modi's perceived political invincibility.
The judges questioned why a symbolic reference should trigger offence and issued notices to the complainant BJP leader and the Delhi government, putting the case on hold.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
18 minutes ago
- The Print
Why activists see SC order on removal of stray dogs as ‘violation' of 2023 ABC rules
Fixing an eight-week deadline to remove stray dogs from streets, the SC has warned of strict action against anyone obstructing the drive. The apex court's order is in the public interest and comes in the backdrop of rabies and dog bite cases, which are on the rise. The move marks a sharp departure from India's two-decade-old policy for stray dog management. For years, courts have attempted to tackle the issue, and every time, they have chosen to balance animal welfare with public safety. Most court-led solutions, however, have faltered in practice due to the inefficiency of civic agencies, say activists. New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday directed civic bodies to remove all stray dogs from the streets in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks, thereafter, housing them in dog shelters in the Capital, but activists say the order violates the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2013, and risks public health setbacks. Under the ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, municipal bodies are to conduct extensive sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs, without any animal cruelty involved, as well as follow up and monitor the process. Under the rules, sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs have to be released in their original locations and cannot be permanently relocated. Permanent removal is allowed only for rabid or aggressive dogs, and even then, civic bodies must follow set procedures. Two high courts, in Bombay and Kerala, have upheld the 2023 ABC Rules. Its ultimate objective is to bring the stray dog population under control and implement an anti-rabies programme, with the corporation helming the cause. Also Read: Locked & chained inside car, pet dog dies as owners roam Taj Mahal Past court efforts & why they failed In 2009, the Supreme Court stopped the culling of street dogs, ruling that sterilisation and vaccination under the ABC programme are the only legal methods to control their population. However, implementation has been weak and riddled with shortcomings. High courts in Kerala, Bombay, Karnataka, and Delhi have repeatedly directed authorities to speed up sterilisation, establish shelters, and submit progress reports. Yet, little has changed on the ground. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC rules framed under it forbid the killing of healthy and non-rabies dogs. On Monday, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, hearing a case on rabies deaths, said, 'This should be the first and foremost exercise—to make all localities free of stray dogs. There should not be any compromise in undertaking any exercise.' When told that the ABC rules mandated the release of sterilised dogs, the court asked those present in the court to 'forget the rules for the time being'. Justice Pardiwala stressed, 'We are not doing this for us; it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest.' This stand of SC, however, contradicts its October 2022 order, which was pronounced by a bench led by then Justice Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) and Justice J.K. Maheshwari. 'Street dogs cannot be held in captivity,' it said. 'Certainly, adoption and keeping stray dogs in captivity is not acceptable,' the bench, at the time, observed and stayed the Nagpur bench order of the Bombay High Court, requiring those interested in feeding stray dogs to adopt them, bring them home, register them with civic authorities, or put them in dog shelters. The SC directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to identify locations for feeding stray dogs and also warned the general public against causing any public nuisance through their dog-feeding drives. Later, in July 2024, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol emphasised the ABC rules, while rejecting a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding hazards caused by stray dogs. The PIL highlighted the increasing menace of street dogs, seeking court permission for the municipal authorities to deal with such issues. Refusing to entertain the PIL, the bench, at the time, observed that there must be a balance between animals' rights and public protection or safety. The courts have now diminished the relevance of the ABC Rules, as pointed out in response to previous such petitions. A careful consideration of the ABC Rules would resolve many problems, the bench noted. Finally, the court held that citizens approach their respective state high courts, and based on the ABC Rules, they must resolve the stray dog menace in that state. In contrast, the Supreme Court's Monday order directs the civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to remove all stray dogs from public spaces, house them in shelters, and stop adoptions, asking authorities to make a move that directly conflicts with the ABC framework, animal rights activists argue. The court passed the order despite vocal protests from the counsel appearing for an animal rights body. However, the court advised the counsel not to argue further. The Delhi HC is currently hearing three petitions in connection with the stray dog menace in the Capital. In one of the petitions, animal rights bodies are seeking contempt proceedings against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Activists are apprehensive that SC's fresh order may preempt the HCs from proceeding against the corporation for not performing the mandate under the ABC Rules. 'Order violates ABC rules' Describing the order as shocking and one contrary to global public health guidance, animal protection experts warn that the order could lead to unnecessary suffering in dog shelters. Calling it 'shocking' and 'an off-handed approach,' Gauri Mulekhi, a trustee of People for Animals, India's largest animal welfare organisation, told ThePrint, 'This seems very uncharacteristic of an apex court of justice of a country with compassion in its DNA.' Mulekhi pointed out that the court, unprecedentedly, cited a dialogue from the Hollywood movie, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: 'When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk'. She also highlighted that the court disregarded a fact placed on record—not a single human death is connected with rabies in Delhi, Mulekhi said. She, urging people to unite to care for street animals, noted that lakhs of lives could be affected due to the SC order. FIAPO or Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, in a public statement, opposed the SC's Monday order, citing 'public health risks and legal violations'. Discussing the new order and how it is against the ABC Rules, FIAPO said that the rules 'fully aligned with WHO recommendations', with sterilised and vaccinated community dogs mandatorily returned to their original territories after treatment. Forced removal directly contravenes these provisions and disregards proven in-situ management models that brought rabies cases down to near-zero in cities, it added. Condemning loss of even one life to rabies, the protesters have called for 'mass vaccination, sterilisation, and waste management instead of mass removal, a science-backed approach that protects both people and animals'. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: Delhi's sterilisation centres key to managing human-stray dog conflict. But they're all blood & filth
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP calls Oppn march against SIR ‘anti-democratic'
New Delhi: The BJP on Monday termed the Opposition protest march towards the Election Commission of India's office as 'anti-democratic' and 'meaningless.' The BJP dismissed the allegations, accusing them of creating chaos to mask their political irrelevance. BJP National General Secretary, Arun Singh, said the protest undermined democratic norms. 'The conduct of the Congress and other Opposition MPs is essentially anti-democratic. Important issues can be raised in Zero Hour and Question Hour in Parliament, but they have wasted that time,' Singh said. BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi also dismissed the protest march of the Opposition parties. 'This protest is meaningless. Demonstrations are justified when demands are ignored, but the Election Commission — a constitutional body — was willing to meet them,' she said.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP urges officials to protect forest land
Khammam: A BJP delegation led by senior leader Namburi Ramalingeswara Rao submitted a memorandum to Additional Collector (Revenue) Srinivasa Reddy on Saturday, demanding an urgent land survey to protect forest lands in Gangaram village of Sattupalli mandal. The delegation alleged that forest lands in Survey Nos. 133, 131 and 40, spread over more than 300 acres, were being illegally encroached upon by a Hyderabad-based real estate developer. According to the BJP, the builder, in collusion with local political leaders, had begun destroying hills and forest areas to facilitate illegal occupation. 'The developer started clearing forested hills with machinery, but retreated after BJP leaders and local farmers strongly protested the move,' said Ramalingeswara Rao, adding that this was not an isolated incident. The BJP leaders expressed concern over what they described as a pattern of illegal encroachments on forest land in the region, allegedly due to inaction by revenue officials. They stressed the need for an immediate and comprehensive government land survey to clearly demarcate and declare forest lands, and to initiate action against encroachers. The delegation further said that with the support of BJP national leader Dr Ponguleti Sudhakar Reddy, the matter will soon be brought to the notice of Union Ministers G Kishan Reddy (Coal and Mines), Bandi Sanjay Kumar (Minister of State for Home), and Bhupender Yadav (Environment, Forest and Climate Change).
