‘Padmaavat’ Bandwagon continues: Producers move to Supreme Court

As Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s controversial film ‘Padmavaat’ is set to release, the movie still faces ban in Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and  Rajasthan. The producers today moved the matter to the  Supreme Court (SC) challenging the ban on its screening by these states. 

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra agreed to hear the petition on Janurary 18.

The film producer has mentioned in his petition, of the film undergoing many changes including its title to meet all suggestions of the Censor Board. 

The producer questioned the power of the State government on imposing a complete ban on the film in spite of the SC clarifying that screening of a film can only be suspended in an area if the law and order of the situation in that area is disturbed.

The film faced stiff opposition from many BJP leaders in Haryana. Both Anil Vij and Vipul Goel had urged Information and broadcasting Minister Smriti Irani to ban the film in November.

Haryana announced its ban on Padmaavat yesterday. The Haryana cabinet headed by chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar approved proposals of the same and Minister Anil Vij tweeted “Film Padmavati/Padmaavat banned in Haryana,” yesterday.

Source: TOI, HT

Sharif absent at court hearing

Nawaz Sharif, the ousted Prime Minister of Pakistan failed to appear before the court on a hearing of corruption cases against him. According to the TOI, he was in London taking care of his ailing wife hence couldn’t come before the court.

The accountability court is hearing the corruption cases filed against Sharif after the Supreme Court on July 28 and was disqualified in the Panama Papers scandal.

The court had summoned Sharif, his daughter Maryam, sons Hussain and Hasan and son-in-law Muhammad Safdar for the first hearing on September 19.

Sharif’s political advisor, Asif Kirmani  was present in the court on his behalf.”I informed the court that my leader (Sharif) was in London along with the entire family due to illness of wife,” he said. Sharif’s wife is undergoing cancer treatment in London.

The court accepted the plea and the case was adjourned till September 26. Fresh summons to be issued for Sharif’s family to appear on the next hearing ordered court.

According to the SC, the accountability judge should resolve the case with in six months.

Sources: TOI, Hindu

SC to hear Rohingyas’ plea on Oct 3.

The Supreme Court on September 18, 2017, decided to hear the plea filed by Rohingya Muslims on October 3. Two Rohingya immigrants, who filed the plea, asked for apex court’s intervention in regards with the deportation of the Rohingyas to Myanmar.
According to the media reports, the Union home ministry has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in which it called Rohingya Muslims a security threat to the country, reported Firstpost. The centre also added that the right to move and settle in the country can only be enjoyed by the citizens of India and any illegal immigrant will face the jurisdiction.
According to a report in the Times of India, the centre will present all the intelligence inputs before the court on October 3.
The Supreme Court has also refused to issue any notice to the National Human Rights Commission, which supports the Rohingyas and is ready to argue against the deportation.
Minister of State for Home Affairs, Kiren RIjiju, said, “It is a sensitive matter. Whatever government will do, will be in nation’s interest.”, reported the Statesman.

Image Sources: Reuters

SC to hear plea on Blue Whale ban

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition to ban the online game Blue Whale, which has lead to several deaths and suicide attempts of teenagers.

As per The Hindu, the petition was heard by a bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. The PIL was filed by N.S Ponnaiah from Madhurai through  Advocate C.R Jaya  Sukin  who urged that the Government should take immediate steps to spread awareness about the threats posed by the game and its availability online should be curbed.

Sukin mentioned that the Government has not taken enough measures even after the number of cases of self- inflicted injuries and suicides have substantially increased.

“Till the date September 5, media reported that at least 200 people had committed suicide after playing the online Blue Whale game. Most of them are young children under the age group of 13, 14 and 15 years,” the petition said.

It also said that while all the other countries had taken initiative to curb the online game, India still has not taken necessary actions.

The petition further stated that the parents are in a state of panic as the game has spread its root  across all the cities of the country even encouraging school children to play.

Sources: Business Standard, The Hindu

SC rejects Subramanian Swamy’s plea for e-auction of IPL telecast rights

A three-judge bench of Supreme Court (SC) today rejected the petition by BJP leader and Rajya Sabha member (MP) Subramanian Swamy for e-auction of the Indian Premier League (IPL) media rights for the next five years. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chadrachud refused to direct the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on the tender process.

In his petition, as sourced by NDTV Sports, Swamy claimed, “Huge money is involved amounting to Rs. 25000-30000 crore in the valuable rights associated with the game of cricket in India which makes it mandatory to have the auction process robust, completely transparent, in order to maximise revenue and prevent vested interests from making undue gains”.

The Vinod Rai led Committee of Administrators (as appointed by the SC) had supported physical tender process over e-auction. Appearing on behalf of the COA, senior advocate Parag Tripathi called the current tender process of BCCI a “better option” as all the bidders’ best quotes to get the telecast rights are kept in a sealed envelope.

The IPL 2018 tournament would start in April.

Links: NDTV, Economic Times

Image source: Hindustan Times

SC rejects Subramanian Swamy’s plea for e-auction of IPL telecast rights

A three-judge bench of Supreme Court (SC) today rejected the petition by BJP leader and Rajya Sabha member (MP) Subramanian Swamy for e-auction of the Indian Premier League (IPL) media rights for the next five years. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chadrachud refused to direct the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on the tender process.

In his petition, as sourced by NDTV Sports, Swamy claimed, “Huge money is involved amounting to Rs. 25000-30000 crore in the valuable rights associated with the game of cricket in India which makes it mandatory to have the auction process robust, completely transparent, in order to maximise revenue and prevent vested interests from making undue gains”.

The Vinod Rai led Committee of Administrators (as appointed by the SC) had supported physical tender process over e-auction. Appearing on behalf of the COA, senior advocate Parag Tripathi called the current tendor process of BCCI a “better option” as all the bidders’ best quotes to get the telecast rights are kept in a sealed envelope.

The IPL 2018 tournament would start in April.

News Sources- The Economic Times, NDTV Sports

SC: Differently-abled people exempted from standing during National Anthem

The Supreme Court today exempted differently abled people from standing while the National Anthem is played in cinema halls. The verdict was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra. The apex court on November 30, 2016 had ordered national anthem be played in all cinema halls across India prior to the screening of the movie. In addition, theatre owners are also required to display the national flag. This mandatory move evoked

In addition, theatre owners are also required to display the national flag. This mandatory move evoked varied reaction from millions of cinema-goers and cinema owners; with comments ranging from forced nationalism to some taking the patriot stand. Moreover, the social media was abuzz with discussion on why playing the national anthem be limited to cinema halls and not in other institutional establishment like the Parliament, State Assemblies and courts.

According to Indian Express, “The directions are issued, for love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one, a sense committed patriotism and nationalism,” said the bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, giving 10 days for compliance.

SOURCES : The Indian Express, OneIndia

Image Source : DNA India