Latest news with #Raju
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
As Supreme Court asks ‘why ED wants to be used for political battles', Solicitor General says ‘concerted effort to create narrative against institution'
The Supreme Court Monday saw sharp exchanges over some of the actions of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), with the court ticking off the agency, indicating that it should not be used for political battles, and saying that its 'officers are crossing all limits'. As Chief Justice of India B R Gavai presiding over a two-judge bench, which also included Justice K Vinod Chandran, made the observation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended 'there is a concerted effort to create a narrative against an institution.' The observations came in three matters, first involving summons against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramiah's wife B M Parvathi and Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with alleged illegal allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), and the other over notices to some senior advocates for appearing before the agency in connection with cases allegedly involving their clients. Karnataka MUDA case Taking up ED's appeal against the Karnataka High Court order quashing the summons to Parvathi and Suresh, CJI Gavai told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who appeared for the probe agency, 'Mr Raju, please don't ask us to open our mouth. Or we will have to pass very harsh comments. We have been saying since morning that we don't use this court as a political platform… Otherwise, we will have to make some harsh comments about ED… Unfortunately, I have some experience with ED in Maharashtra.' As Raju referred to a connected plea about the larger conspiracy involved, the bench expressed reluctance in entertaining that too and said, 'You don't percolate this virus throughout the country now. Let the political battles be fought before the electorate. Why are you being used as a…'. 'In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the reasoning as adopted by the learned single judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed.' The court agreed to Raju's request that the order not be treated as a precedent. 'Thank you for saving some harsh comments,' CJI told RAJU after dictating the order. Summons to lawyers A short while later, the bench took up petitions asking whether a lawyer who gives an opinion can be summoned in connection with a probe. The petitions came to be filed in the context of ED notices to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal over a probe involving their clients. The notices were subsequently withdrawn. In a circular, ED said, 'No summons shall be issued to any Advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023…'. The agency also stated that, where necessary, it will do so with the prior approval of its director. Appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said, 'ED has now come out with a circular which says lawyers will not be summoned now. But that will not apply to CBI, etc. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria said that some guidelines are needed in this matter. Pressing for direction, Singh said, 'If a lawyer is not free in giving advice and he feels giving advice can also result in being summoned for probe…it will have a chilling effect on the complete justice delivery system.' Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that such 'advice can be right, advice can be wrong'. To which, CJI Gavai said, 'Even if it's wrong, it's a privileged communication. How can you be summoned by the ED for that?'. 'Certainly not,' responded Attorney General R Venkataramani. 'I think for all matters, we must lay down guidelines,' said CJI Gavai, and turning to the AG, he added, 'Your officers are crossing all limits.' The CJI recalled the matter that his bench had taken up earlier and said, 'In two matters, we had to tell Raju, if you open your mouth, then we will have to say a lot about ED.' Intervening, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, 'So far as this issue is concerned, lawyers, as the AG said, cannot be summoned for giving an opinion. General observations are…sometimes misconstrued… What happens is, I am saying this, ED is not saying this, there is a concerted effort to create a narrative against an institution.' Urging against generalising, he said that if in a given case, there is overstepping by the ED, the court would intervene. 'We have been finding it in many cases …,' said the CJI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, 'Please don't carry that impression based upon interviews and YouTube shows. There is a narrative building simultaneously outside.' The CJI said he was speaking from experience. 'Not from interviews. My experience from family courts to…presiding over the bench…' He also recalled how earlier on Monday, he had to ask the petitioners in two cases not to politicise issues. 'Unfortunately, on the very first day (of the week), I had two matters from two political parties, and we said don't politicise,' said Justice Gavai. 'Don't try to politicise before the court' Earlier in the day, the CJI bench took up two petitions. One of them sought the initiation of criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her remarks on the apex court's ruling in the teachers' recruitment scam case. The other was by the Karnataka Government challenging the quashing of a criminal case filed against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya for comments about the alleged suicide of a farmer. In the first, CJI Gavai said, 'Don't try to politicise before the court; your political battle, you should fight somewhere else. List after 4 weeks.' In the Tejasvi Surya case, while dismissing it, the court said, 'What is this? Don't politicise the matter. Fight your battles before the electorate.' Pointing out that he was not referring to any political party in particular, Mehta said, 'Sometimes, and I am not on any political party, if I am a politician, but if I am involved in a Rs 3000 crore scam, I can create a narrative in my favour by several interviews, etc.' CJI Gavai said, 'Unfortunately, we all know the ground reality also.' Mehta said, 'But ground reality will have to be seen from the facts presented, from the material available, from the evidence.' 'Therefore, we are not passing any observations without hearing…,' said the CJI. 'That's what I am saying. Sometimes wider observations create a wrong impression…,' said Mehta. The CJI said, 'We are not passing any compliments for ED, which has been recorded in the judgement by one of the learned judges, in a concurring opinion for ED.' 'Your Lordships would neither comment nor criticise. It would be based on facts,' said SG Mehta. Apparently agreeing, CJI Gavai said, 'it all depends on facts'. Narrative building SG Mehta said that such narrative building 'is happening before Your Lordships hear any matter, forget ED giving interviews etc.' The CJI said, 'We have seen in so many matters that ED even after the well-reasoned order by the HC is filing appeals after appeals, only for the sake of filing.' Mehta said, 'Forget ED, I am on a wider issue. Before any matter reaches Your Lordships of any significance…' 'We don't read newspapers. And at least the YouTube interview, my brother and I don't have the time to watch,' said CJI Gavai. 'There are other media, and the narrative building starts. This is going on very purposefully, very designedly,' said SG Mehta. He urged the court to take cognisance of it and lay guidelines, saying the question is, 'while representing a client, can I build a narrative outside the court in political matters?'. 'It's a question of law. I am not on ED.' Justice Chandran asked whether it can be said that such narratives will influence the bench. 'How do you think this narrative will influence if we don't see it at all. Narratives will go on over there. People might be concerned. But you can't say that we will be influenced by it.' CJI Gavai asked, 'Have you seen any of our judgements which are based on the narratives, and not on the facts of that case?. If there is one judgment, please show it to me.' Mehta said, 'I am before the first court, not only before two honourable judges. As a proposition, I am saying. Not that the Chief Justice would be influenced or Justice Chandran would be… But as a proposition, is it proper? And I am not on ED at all.' He reiterated that 'as far as lawyers are concerned, for giving a legal opinion, he cannot be summoned.' Appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCORA), Advocate Vipin Nair said, 'It's not just Senior Advocates, it's also normal lawyers who get affected by this. It's lawyers as a class.' Mehta recounted an incident from Ahmedabad where an accused, after committing murder, contacted his lawyer and discussed disposing of the body. The CJI said that it will be an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Economic Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Bring our voting age down to 10
Britain, in a moment of brain-Starmering enlightenment, has announced it will lower its voting age from 18 to 16 from 2029. Presumably because British kids who are now 12, will, in four years' time, between all those TikTok dances, be politically mature. Which is why India, ever the overachiever in aspirational matters and spirit-boosting, must go further. Let's drop the voting age to 10. Why? Because voting, thanks to our excellent EC and no-nonsense rhyming politicians, has become child's 10, Indian kids have mastered school-home diplomacy, coalition-building within the family, and the art of strategic tantrums - skills we already see mirrored in parliamentary proceedings. They know how to promise candy and deliver floss. 'Everything is Raju's fault!' and 'Only if you're in my team' are lines that make our democracy 'like this only'. Subteens, like today's 18-plus voters, also cast their ballots in non-parliamentary voting exercises based on who the coolest candidate is, not on boring issues. Critics will argue that 10-year-olds lack economic understanding. But so do... well, never mind the free electricity pre-poll promises. They're too emotional? Have you seen the news? Lowering the voting age to 10 isn't just progressive - it acknowledges that in a country where maturity is a civilisational given, age is just a vote share.
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Pune Police Station Defaced, Cops Pepper-Sprayed By Arrested Man: ‘Will Enter Your Homes, Kill You'
Raju alias Barkya Londhe was brought to the police station at around 1 am when he started ranting and broke the windows of the station. A man accused in multiple cases created a ruckus at Pune's Sahkar Nagar police station when he pepper-sprayed police personnel. Four to five policemen have been injured in the incident. Nabbed in connection with a molestation case on July 18, Raju alias Barkya Londhe, vandalised the station. He was earlier arrested under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), which is mainly meant for the control and prevention of criminal activity by organised gangs or syndicates. Londhe was out on bail in the MCOCA case when he reportedly molested a woman. After the woman lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Sahkar Nagar police station, a search was launched to find him. As per reports, Barkya Londhe was brought to the police station at around 1 am. He started ranting and broke the windows of the station. He injured himself and threatened to kill the policemen as well. The accused continued to rant for around one to one and a half hours. He also pepper-sprayed some of the cops, leaving them with breathing problems. Londhe has now been taken to a hospital for a medical examination. Senior Police Inspector at Sahkar Nagar police station, Rahul Gaud told Indian Express, 'The accused injured himself and pepper-sprayed the police. He has been taken to a hospital for a medical examination. We are lodging a fresh offence against him on charges of causing disturbance in government duty. Further investigation is on." The incident comes just days after Sahkar Nagar police station was in the news for allegedly refusing to register complaints. As per a report in the Lokmat Times, a brawl broke out between some wrestlers and youths near Tajali Maidan on July 15. The wrestlers had reportedly beaten up the youth and also molested some women present at the location. The youth were preparing for a police recruitment exam when the incident occurred. A video of the incident later went viral on social media, as per the outlet. A sit-in protest was organised in front of the Sahkar Nagar police station due to allegations that the police was refusing to lodge complaints against the wrestlers. A case was later registered against the wrestlers. view comments First Published: 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.
India Today
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
The ABC of stunts in Bollywood, Akshay Kumar's insurance and how it still is risky
The recent death of popular stuntman Raju on the set of Pa Ranjith and actor Arya's upcoming Tamil film has once again brought safety concerns in the entertainment industry into the spotlight. To understand how stunt work operates in the Hindi film industry and what safeguards are in place, spoke with action director Vikram Singh Dahiya, who has worked in Bollywood for over a decade in films like Dhadak 2, Jigra, Gunjan Saxena, Antim and OMG 2. He also revealed how Akshay Kumar spearheading health and accident insurance for stunt professionals has helped is no stranger to the high-stakes world of stunt work, having directed action sequences for multiple films and collaborated with stars like Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar, Alia Bhatt and Vicky Kaushal. He shared how the industry has evolved, the role of insurance, and how Akshay Kumar contributed to improving conditions for stunt is always a priority-but accidents can still happenDahiya insists that today's Bollywood sets are far more safety-conscious than in the past. 'We always take precautions,' he says. "For instance, during car flips, we install protective rods, called 'cages' inside the vehicle. The driver is strapped in tightly with a professional-grade harness to avoid any movement during impact.' Even fuel tanks are monitored. 'We ensure there's just enough petrol to complete the scene, maybe 250–300 meters of driving, but never more than necessary,' he adds. "But once the car flips, it's out of your hands. You can only plan to a point."Despite all these measures, Dahiya acknowledges that stunt work remains inherently risky. 'Even with padding and proper training, when we pull someone with ropes at 30–40 km/hr for a fall, the body absorbs shock. It's calculated risk-but risk nonetheless.'On the fatal Chennai incidentIn a tragic accident, stuntman Mohan Raj, fondly called Raju, died on the set of Pa Ranjith and actor Arya's upcoming film. The accident took place on July 13 while Raju was executing a car stunt. Speaking about the recent fatal stunt in Chennai, Dahiya expressed his condolences. 'It was a very unfortunate accident,' he said, adding that while he wasn't present and doesn't have details about the South industry's safety protocols, Bollywood has made strides in ensuring protection for its stunt Kumar gifted insurance to the industryOne of the most notable improvements in Bollywood, Dahiya says, came through actor Akshay Kumar, who initiated health and accident insurance for stunt professionals.'Thanks to Akshay sir, around 650–700 stuntmen and action crew members in Bollywood are now covered under insurance,' he reveals. 'It includes both health and accident insurance. If a stuntman is injured on or off set, he can avail of cashless treatment up to Rs 5–5.5 lakh.'advertisementIn the unfortunate event of death, the nominee receives a payout of around Rs 20-25 lakh. 'This insurance wasn't there before. Akshay Kumar not only advocated for it but also helped fund it. He knows first-hand what stuntmen go through.'How to become a licenced stunt professional in Bollywood?Joining the Movie Stunt Artists Association isn't as simple as walking onto a set. Dahiya explains that aspirants must be trained in martial arts and undergo a test conducted by a panel of senior action directors. "After passing, the individual is given a stunt ID card and officially registered. There's a membership fee of around Rs 3.5 lakh, which is refundable at the time of retirement,' he association includes everyone from stunt coordinators to action directors, with different fee structures depending on the the riskiest stunt?'There's risk in every type of stunt,' Dahiya says matter-of-factly. "Fire, explosions, car flips, high falls, underwater sequences - it all carries risk. Even falling from a table can cause injury if your foot lands incorrectly." Action director Vikram Dahya with Alia Bhatt on Jigra sets. advertisementDahiya stresses that every stunt is treated with care. "Before every dangerous shot, we rehearse, use dummies, and try to estimate how much damage may happen. But it's still real. Nothing is fake."Dahiya takes pride in his record. "In 11–12 years as an action director, I've never had a major accident on set," he says. "There have been minor injuries, twisted ankles or a broken finger, but never anything severe," he takes his responsibility seriously. "When someone comes to my set, I know their family is waiting for them. I don't take risks lightly. I calculate everything before we shoot."Meanwhile, a police case has been registered against film director Pa Ranjith along with stunt actor Vinoth, Rajkamal of Neelam Productions, and vehicle owner Prabhakaran in stuntman Mohan Raj's death case.- Ends
Hans India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
SC relaxes Ashoka Prof's bail conditions, grills SIT
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Haryana SIT's line of investigation in the case of Ashoka University professor booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor saying 'it misdi-rected itself'. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the Haryana SIT headed by a senior police officer to only confine itself to the two FIRs against Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his contentious so-cial media posts and see if there was an offence and submit its report in four weeks. 'We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,' Justice Kant said. The bench said though it did not want to interfere or intervene with the investigation, it questioned the seizure of the cell phones and other electronic gadgets. 'It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs does not disclose any offence, this case can be closed. It can always say that during the course of investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials, which constitute separate offences and the law will take its own course,' the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the SIT. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted despite the court directing the SIT to focus on the contents of the FIR, it carried out a 'roving inquiry' and sent the gadgets seized from the professor to forensic laboratory for examination. He referred to the interim status report of the SIT saying it had received the forensic lab report of the gadgets and two more months were required for its examination. Raju said the investigation was SIT's prerogative and the accused couldn't dictate terms of the probe. 'All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets. We want to know for what purposes, these gadgets were seized?' the bench asked Raju. Justice Kant said if Raju was unable to answer the question it would call the head of the SIT and tell him about the line of investigation. Sibal said the posts were very patriotic statements and anyone looking at it would give the same view. Raju argued to see if there was an offence, devices had to be examined to see if there was more than just social media posts. 'We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,' the bench reiterated.
