Latest news with #VishnuShankarJain
India Gazette
13-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Putting stay on movie is absolutely wrong": Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain on Delhi HC's decision on 'Udaipur Files'
Jammu (Jammu and Kashmir) [India], July 13 (ANI): Senior advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain on Sunday said he disagreed with the Delhi High Court's decision to stay the release of the film 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder.' Jain said the stay order is a 'total violation of the set mandates of the law'. Speaking to ANI, Vishnu Shankar Jain said, '... I do not agree with the order of the Delhi HC. It is a total violation of the set mandates of the law so far. In a democratic setup, a pre-publication ban has been considered an extreme step. Putting a stay on the movie is absolutely wrong. The court refused to put a stay on many movies saying it would be a violation of the freedom of speech and expression.' He added that in a democracy, banning a film before its release is an extreme step and questioned how a film based on a real incident like Kanhaiya Lal's murder could harm social harmony. 'The HC has also said that if it bothers anyone, they should not watch the movie. Kanhaiya Lal, the the victim who was brutally murdered in Udaipur, has not been given justice, and if a film has been made on this incident, I don't understand how will it disturb the social harmony,' Jain said. The Delhi High Court on Thursday ordered a stay on the release of the film 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder', which was scheduled to hit theatres on July 11. The stay will remain in effect until the Central Government decides on the revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal passed the interim order while hearing two petitions, one by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and another by journalist Prashant Tandon, challenging the CBFC's decision to grant certification to the film. The petitioners argued that the film's release could disturb communal harmony and pose a serious threat to public order, given the sensitive nature of the subject. The Court observed that since the petitioners had been relegated to invoke the revisional remedy under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the release of the film must remain stayed until a decision is made on their application for interim relief. 'We provide that till the grant of interim relief is decided, there shall be a stay on the release of the film,' the bench stated. The movie is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was brutally killed in broad daylight by two men allegedly angered by a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The incident had triggered national outrage and raised serious concerns about radicalisation and communal violence. (ANI)
United News of India
22-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC to hear plea seeking President's Rule in Bengal amid communal unrest
New Delhi, Apr 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court is set to hear today a plea demanding the imposition of President's Rule and urgent deployment of paramilitary forces in West Bengal, citing ongoing communal and political violence, allegedly linked to the Waqf (Amendment) Act in Murshidabad district. The matter was earlier mentioned for urgent listing before a Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on April 21, which scheduled the hearing for today. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing petitioner Ranjana Agnihotri, sought the Court's permission to submit additional documents detailing the continuing violence in the state. He also urged for immediate invocation of Article 355 of the Constitution to ensure security and constitutional compliance. 'There is a need for immediate deployment of paramilitary forces. This matter is listed for tomorrow. I have filed an additional application seeking the invocation of Article 355,' Jain submitted during the mentioning. The fresh intervention application was filed by Ranjana Agnihotri through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Vishnu Shankar Jain, along with AoRs Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kunal Mimani, Prateek Kumar, Parth Yadav, and Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar. The plea has been clubbed with a previously filed writ petition by petitioner Shashank Shekhar Jha, which seeks a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violence in the state.
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea on Prez Rule in Bengal over Waqf violence
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an application seeking imposition of President's Rule in West Bengal in the context of recent violence in the state over the Waqf Amendment Bill, even as it spoke for the first time on the criticism of judicial overreach in recent judgments. A bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai was hearing a fresh application filed by West Bengal-based social worker Devdutta Maji and advocate Mani Munjal who sought President's Rule after clashes in Murshidabad since April 13 left three dead and 18 policemen injured. Responding to lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain's request for considering imposition of President's Rule, the bench, also comprising justice AG Masih, said, 'You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to impose President's Rule. As it is, we are being blamed for encroaching upon the legislative and executive functions.' The petition will be heard on Tuesday. In a parallel proceeding, a separate bench of the top court -- comprising justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh -- heard two petitions demanding an independent probe into the Murshidabad violence case. The court permitted the two petitioners – advocates Vishal Tiwari and Shashank Shekhar Jha -- to withdraw their petitions, as the court found the pleadings to be based on media reports, lacking the decency and standards expected in a matter to be filed before the top court, and for not naming the government officials as parties against whom allegations of inaction is alleged. The violence triggered a political battle with the Bharatiya Janata Party targeting the Mamata Banerjee government for permitting violence triggered by protests against the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. Following the incident, as NH-2 remained blocked, situation in Murshidabad and some neighbouring districts became tense as shops were looted and police came under attack. The Calcutta high court on April 13 ordered central forces to be deployed in violence-affected areas. The police later swung into action and claimed to have arrested 118 people in connection with the arson and violence. The application on President's Rule filed was mentioned by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, to be heard along with a pending petition filed by Ranjana Agnihotri and others who asked for President's Rule in the context of post-poll violence in West Bengal in 2021. The bench allowed the application to be listed after Jain said, 'In the 2021 matter, court has already issued notice and the same is under consideration. Through this application we have brought recent incidents of violence. All we seek is a report under Article 355 of the Constitution by the Centre from the state.' Article 355 deals with the Union's duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance, which is a ground to impose President's Rule. This provision requires Centre to ensure that states run in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The application by Maji and Munjal pointed out incidents of violence targeting Hindus in the state from 2022 till April 2025, and sought a three-member judicial committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge and two former high court judges to inquire into the incidents, particularly the violence in Murshidabad. The applicants also sought directions to the Centre to deploy central forces in the violence-affected areas and the state government to ensure the life, liberty and dignity of citizens. In 2022, after violence on the eve of Lakshmi Puja in the Mominpur area of Kolkata, the Calcutta high court had ordered the state government to form a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the incident. However, the application said that SIT made no progress in booking the culprits. Plea for SIT withdrawn Another bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard petitions filed by Vishal Tiwari and Shashank Shekhar Jha demanding a special investigation team (SIT) to be set up to probe the failure of the state administration and police to control the violence that took place on April 12. Jha even demanded compensation and rehabilitation for the victims. But the court differed. 'In an Article 32 petition, we look for interesting questions of law. Look at your petition. We should maintain dignity and decorum of this institution while filing any petition,' it said. Jha cited the matter related to President's Rule in West Bengal being heard by another bench on Tuesday, and requested his matter to be tagged with the other case. 'Never be in a hurry to file such petitions,' the bench said, adding, 'If you are alleging failure of administration in the state, the basic rule is that you will first cite what are the responsibilities of authorities and how they failed in performing their duties.' The court further stated, 'They are not party before us. Do you think we can examine their role in such a situation? If you make allegations against someone, are they not to be made party. Help us in being the voice of the voiceless but do it in a proper way.' The court permitted both petitions to be withdrawn, granting them the liberty to approach the court with a better, comprehensive petition.
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
We're accused of intruding into Parliament's domain, says SC
NEW DELHI: Faced with criticism in some quarters for imposing a three-month limit on President to decide on bills referred to her by governors, Supreme Court on Monday seemed circumspect while dealing with a public interest litgation seeking imposition of President's rule in West Bengal citing attacks on Hindus during protests against the new waqf law. Arguing for a four-year-old PIL filed by one Ranjana Agnihotri, scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain requested a bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih to take on record additional documents on fresh violence against Hindus and their exodus from several areas of the state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Tech Is Replacing Traditional Air Conditioners in 2025 Chill Mate Read More Undo Justice Gavai's immediate reaction was, "You (petitioner) want us to issue a direction to the Union govt to impose President's rule in Bengal? As it is, we (SC) are accused of intruding into the executive and legislative domains." Vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar had strongly criticised the SC. Two BJP MPs - Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma - also made harsh allegations against the SC and the CJI, which was cited by an advocate to request the Gavai-led bench to grant permission to file a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the two lawmakers for making false allegations against the CJI and the SC. The bench asked the advocate to follow the rule book and seek attorney general R Venkataramani's consent to file such a plea.
