On 14th December, 39-year-old gangster Anil alias Sonu Matka died following an encounter with the police in the district of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. According to the police, he was a known associate of the Hashim Baba gang in Delhi. He was critically injured in an encounter during a joint operation by the Delhi Police Special Cell and UP STF. Later, he succumbed to his injuries during treatment at the hospital.
Delhi Police's Special Cell arrested a criminal named Sonu Matka in an encounter in Meerut. He is accused of shooting his uncle and nephew on Diwali night. The Special Cell team surrounded the area in the early hours of Saturday after receiving information about Sonu Matka's… pic.twitter.com/NPd37QHdp5
Sonu Matka was wanted in several crimes in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, including the murder of a man and his nephew in the Farsh Bazar area of Delhi. A bounty of Rs 50,000 was announced by the police for his arrest.
Details of the encounter
According to media reports, the encounter took place in the early hours of 14th December in the TP Nagar area of Meerut after the police received input about his location in the region. During the encounter, Matka was critically injured and was taken to a hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries. Following the encounter, the police recovered two sophisticated pistols, 10 live rounds, and a bike from Matka.
Statements from law enforcement
In a statement, STF Meerut SP Brijesh Singh said, “Sonu Matka was an infamous gangster from Delhi. The Special Cell of Delhi Police received input about his location in TP Nagar Ved Vyas Puri. Delhi Police informed the STF about the input. In a joint operation, both teams reached Ved Vyas Puri at 7 AM.”
Police located him as he was waiting for someone on his bike. Upon noticing the police, he tried to escape, and the police followed him. Matka opened fire at the police and fired 5-6 shots. The police retaliated to the firing, and one of the bullets hit Matka, causing him to fall from the bike.
STF took him to the District Hospital, where he was pronounced dead by the doctors. Around 12-15 rounds were fired during the encounter. He was wanted in 12 murder and robbery cases. Several cases were registered against him in Delhi and UP. He was linked to the Hashim Baba and Umesh Pandit gangs.”
Joint operation details
Additional Director General of Police (STF) Amitabh Yash was quoted by news agency PTI as saying, “The encounter took place in the jurisdiction of the TP Nagar police station. The joint operation was conducted by the Special Task Force (STF) of the Uttar Pradesh Police and the Delhi Police’s Special Cell.”
He added that Matka, who was a native of Baghpat, was involved in several cases of robbery and murder in both Delhi and UP. He said, “During the encounter, Matka suffered critical injuries and subsequently succumbed to them while undergoing treatment.” Further investigation into the matter is underway.
Uncle-Nephew murder in Delhi linked to Matka
Matka was wanted for the murder of a man and his nephew in Delhi. The duo was killed on the night of Diwali while they were celebrating outside their home. A 17-year-old boy had allegedly hired Matka over a financial dispute. Forty-four-year-old Akash Sharma and his 16-year-old nephew Rishab Sharma were killed in the incident. Police stated that the teenager, who had hired the shooter, had lent Sharma around Rs 70,000 and had not received the money back. Sharma was allegedly not responding to his calls.
Escape after parole
Notably, Matka had been in prison since 2014 in a murder case. In 2021, he came out on parole using his wife’s operation as an excuse. In June 2021, he was supposed to surrender to the police, but he escaped. According to media reports, he was planning to attack former MLA Amarpal Sharma.
Failed attack and investigation
Matka and his associate Ajay went to Sahibabad to attack Sharma but had to run away as there were many people around Sharma. They left a bike at the crime scene that was registered to one Amir alias Salim Tillan of the Hashim Baba gang. Ajay was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on 30th November. He was interrogated to obtain information on Matka.
On 13th December, a video surfaced on social media showing a man, later identified as Mehboob, pulling a minor girl’s hair and beating her in the middle of the road. According to media reports, the incident took place within the jurisdiction of Kithore police station in Meerut district, Uttar Pradesh. Mehboob was harassing the minor schoolgirl as she was returning home from school.
When the girl protested, Mehboob pulled her hair and beat her up. A few seconds-long video of the incident was recorded by a bystander and later went viral on social media. It drew the attention of the authorities, after which a police case was registered and the accused was arrested.
UP के मेरठ मे कॉलेज से लौटती कक्षा 9 की छात्रा को छेड़छाड़ के बाद सरेआम पीटने की वीडियो वायरल होने के बाद पुलिस ने मनचले महबूब को एनकाउंटर मे अरेस्ट किया है। महबूब की टांग मे गोली लगी है।#viralvideo#Meerut#UttarPradeshpic.twitter.com/Nma4yhCRtD
The matter, however, did not end there. While the police were taking the accused for a medical examination to CHC hospital, he had the audacity to attempt an escape by snatching the service pistol of a head constable. Reportedly, he ran through the canal track and nearby bushes after jumping off the motorcycle on which he was being transported to the hospital.
The station-in-charge of Kithore police station, along with his team, immediately initiated a search for him. He was spotted in the bushes, and the police asked him to surrender. Amidst the chaos, Mehboob opened fire at the police, prompting a retaliatory response from the police personnel. Mehboob reportedly sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and was subsequently apprehended by the police. He was then taken to a hospital for treatment.
मेरठ-नाबालिग छात्रा से सरेआम हुई छेड़छाड़,पिटाई
➡छेड़छाड़ का विरोध करने पर शोहदे ने पीटा
➡स्कूल से लौट रही छात्रा से शोहदा कर रहा था छेड़छाड़
The victim in the case was a Class 11 student. While returning home, Mehboob, who was a resident of the same village, started harassing her. She resisted, angering him, after which he attacked her. Passers-by intervened and rescued the minor girl. The victim later informed her family, who approached the police station to lodge a complaint.
In a statement, Meerut Superintendent of Police, Rakesh Mishra, said: “A video had gone viral showing a man harassing and troubling a minor girl. Taking cognisance of the video, an FIR was lodged at the concerned police station based on the complaint received. The individual, identified as Mehboob, a resident of the Shahjahanpur police station area, was immediately arrested. Later, while being taken to the CHC for a medical check-up, he snatched a pistol from the accompanying police team and attempted to escape. Subsequently, under the leadership of the SHO, a combing operation was conducted. During the operation, when confronted, he fired at the police party. In retaliatory self-defence firing by the police, the individual sustained injuries. He has been sent for initial medical treatment.”
Uttar Pradesh: Rakesh Mishra, SP Dehat Meerut says, "…A video had gone viral showing a man harassing and troubling a minor girl. Taking cognizance of the video, an FIR was lodged at the concerned police station based on the complaint received. The individual, identified as… pic.twitter.com/z8XUFriVH8
On 13th December (local time), San Francisco police and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner confirmed that former OpenAI researcher and whistleblower, 26-year-old Suchir Balaji, was found dead in his apartment. As per the Mercury Times report, he allegedly committed suicide in his apartment located on Buchanan Street in San Francisco. His body was recovered on 26th November 2024 at around 1 PM after a call was made to the police to check his well-being.
Suchir publicly accused OpenAI of violating copyright law
According to the medical examiner’s office, Suchir committed suicide, and police officials found no “evidence of foul play” in the matter. Reportedly, he held information that was expected to play a key role in a lawsuit against OpenAI. Around three months ago, Suchir publicly accused OpenAI of violating US copyright law while developing ChatGPT. For those unaware, ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence program currently used by hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Official statements from authorities and OpenAI
Speaking to TechCrunch, the medical examiner’s office said, “The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) has identified the decedent as Suchir Balaji, 26, of San Francisco. The manner of death has been determined to be suicide. The OCME has notified the next-of-kin and has no further comment or reports for publication at this time.”
In a statement, OpenAI said, “We are devastated to learn of this incredibly sad news today and our hearts go out to Suchir’s loved ones during this difficult time.”
OpenAI’s copyright controversies
In late 2022, several lawsuits were filed against OpenAI by computer programmers, journalists, and authors, accusing the company of illegally stealing their copyrighted material to train ChatGPT and increase its value beyond USD 150 billion. Over the past year, several news outlets, including The New York Times in the US and ANI in India, have sued OpenAI for copyright infringement.
On 23rd October this year, Suchir argued that OpenAI was harming businesses and entrepreneurs by stealing their data to train ChatGPT. He said, “If you believe what I believe, you have to just leave the company. This is not a sustainable model for the internet ecosystem as a whole.”
Suchir Balaji’s views on AI
During an interview with The New York Times, Suchir revealed that he initially believed AI could benefit society, including its ability to cure diseases and stop ageing. He said, “I thought we could invent some kind of scientist that could help solve them.”
However, his views about AI began to change in 2022, two years after joining OpenAI as a researcher. He expressed concerns about his assignment to gather data from the internet for ChatGPT’s fourth version, which analysed text from nearly the entire internet to train the program.
In late October, in a post on Suchir’s personal website, he wrote that no known factors seemed to weigh in favour of the AI software being a fair use of its training data. He wrote, “That being said, none of the arguments here are fundamentally specific to ChatGPT either, and similar arguments could be made for many generative AI products in a wide variety of domains.”
I recently participated in a NYT story about fair use and generative AI, and why I'm skeptical "fair use" would be a plausible defense for a lot of generative AI products. I also wrote a blog post (https://t.co/xhiVyCk2Vk) about the nitty-gritty details of fair use and why I…
Notably, on 18th November, the attorneys of The New York Times filed a letter in federal court naming Suchir Balaji as someone who had “unique and relevant” documents that could have supported the news outlet’s case against the AI company. The paper also named 11 other past and present employees of the company who might have material helpful in the case.
Rise of ChatGPT and AI challenges
ChatGPT was released in 2022. In a short span, it has become a worldwide sensation, challenging other companies to release similar platforms, such as Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), which has developed its own AI engine, Grok. These AI engines analyse vast amounts of data from the internet to generate answers for prompts submitted by users, creating text, images, and videos. With time, AI is becoming more intelligent, posing challenges to writers, editors, artists, journalists, authors, and coders, among others.
Ongoing copyright disputes
In the case against OpenAI, news outlets have argued that the company plagiarised and stole articles, undermining their business models. The lawsuit stated, “Microsoft and OpenAI simply take the work product of reporters, journalists, editorial writers, editors and others who contribute to the work of local newspapers — all without any regard for the efforts, much less the legal rights, of those who create and publish the news on which local communities rely.”
However, the company has refuted the claims, stressing that the work done by OpenAI to train ChatGPT remains under “fair use” laws. The company said, “We see immense potential for AI tools like ChatGPT to deepen publishers’ relationships with readers and enhance the news experience.”
IT giant Accenture has locked its official X account following demands for the sacking of AI expert Atul Subhash’s wife after he committed suicide. Subhash tragically took his life on December 9, 2024, leaving behind a 24-page suicide note and a 90-minute video in which he accused his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, an employee at Accenture, of harassment and extortion.
Before long, several users on X demanded Accenture dismiss Singhania for allegedly pushing her husband to take the drastic step of taking his own life. One of the users tweeted, “The bare minimum @Accenture should do is sack the murderer responsible for the death of Atul Subhash.” Many others accused the company of being complicit in Subhash’s death.
As the barrage of tweets asking Accenture to dismiss Singhania began to mount, the company locked its official X account, trying to handle the online repercussions of the 34-year-old software engineer’s suicide, which has brought to the fore the issue of harassment faced by men in a toxic relationship.
However, the move is widely perceived as an effort to minimize scrutiny as the situation unfolds. Additionally, Accenture CEO Julie Sweet also locked her X profile amidst the escalating criticism. Meanwhile, candlelight vigils were organised outside Accenture’s offices in Bengaluru, where IT professionals gathered in solidarity with Subhash, calling for justice.
The marriage between Nikita Singhania and Atul Subhash, which took place in 2019, ended in a contentious separation in 2021. In his suicide note, Subhash accused Singhania and her relatives of relentless harassment, including demands for a significant portion of a ₹3 crore settlement and filing false domestic violence and dowry harassment cases against him. He claimed these pressures pushed him into despair, ultimately leading to his tragic decision to end his life.
The police have launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Subhash’s death. An FIR has been filed against Singhania and some of her family members, charging them with abetment of suicide, among other offences. Authorities are also probing allegations of extortion and harassment leading up to the incident. While both families have denied the accusations, the case has sparked a broader debate about marital disputes and the legal rights of men in India.
On the 12th of December 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that no further petitions will be registered against the Places of Worship Act while the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Act are being heard. A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan issued a directive that no effective interim or final orders should be passed by lower courts, including orders for surveys, until the court decides on the constitutionality of the Act. In addition, the Centre was given four weeks to file its response.
The Supreme Court directive came at a time when a nationwide debate is ongoing over the disputed Sambhal Jama Masjid, which the Hindu side contends to be the Harihar temple, the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute, and the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute among others wherein the crux of the issue demolition and subsequent encroachment and construction of mosques by Islamic invaders like Babur.
While the Muslim side sees the Places of Worship Act (1991) as no less than a protective shield in facilitating its encroachment of ASI-protected and erstwhile Hindu religious sites, the Hindu side views it as opposed to the principles of natural justice. As the fate of this Act relies on the judgment of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan, let’s take a look at the career trajectory of these judges.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Sanjiv Khanna is the nephew of former Supreme Court Judge Hans Raj Khanna, who infamously took on Indira Gandhi’s government in 1976. Inspired by his uncle, Justice Sanjiv Khanna enrolled at the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and was appointed to the Delhi High Court as an Additional Judge in 2005. Justice Khanna was thereafter elevated to the Supreme Court in January 2019. He is set to serve in the capacity of Chief Justice of India for a brief period of 6 months until 13th May 2025.
Image via Business Standard
On the 11th of November 2024, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India.
He was a part of the 7-Judge Bench that overruled the 1967 Azeez Basha case, which denied minority status to Aligarh Muslim University. CJI Sanjiv Khanna and three other judges directed that the status of AMU be freshly determined based on the tests laid down in that particular case (Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal).
In April 2024, he along with Justice Dipankar Dutta shot down [pdf] a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), seeking 100% VVPAT verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Justice Khanna was previously part of the 2019 Bench that increased the number of booths, which undergo VVPAT physical verification, from 1 to 5 per Assembly Segment.
In February this year, Justice Khanna was part of a 5-judge bench that dubbed the electoral bond scheme ‘unconstitutional.’ Justice Khanna in a concurring judgment dismissed the argument that donor privacy applied to donations made through banks. He noted that bank officials are aware of the identities of the donors who purchased the bonds.
He was part of the 5-Judge Bench that unanimously upheld the constitutionality of abrogation of Article 370. In a concurring judgment, Justice Khanna stated that the removal of Article 370 did not undermine India’s federal structure.
In 2019, Justice Khanna did not interfere with the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI), which stalled the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s biopic amid the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). He was also part of the Bench which rejected the Centre’s petition to increase the compensation given to victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The apex court contended that the settlement could be set aside only on grounds of ‘fraud’, which was not pleaded by the Centre.
He along with 4 other Judges also upheld that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant divorce to couples using its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution without the need to approach lower courts (Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan). In 2018, Justice Khanna also ruled in favour of the decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine v Union of India.
In August this year, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was a part of the bench that challenged the DK Marathe College’s ban on hijab, questioning why the prohibition had not been applied to other religious markers like tilak and bindi although the College contended that the dress code applied to students of all religions and castes.
In September this year, Khanna led the bench which granted bail of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested by the CBI in connection with the Delhi Liquor Scam.
In November this year, a bench led by CJI Khanna stopped the Sambhal court from proceeding with the survey order till the Jama Masjid Commitee’s plea was listed in the High Court.
On 25th November, a bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected several petitions contesting the use of the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution’s Preamble under the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976 during the emergency imposed by former Prime Minister late Indira Gandhi. The bench, which included Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that the Preamble is also subject to parliamentary amending authority and added that the Preamble’s adoption date does not limit the Parliament’s ability to make changes to it. The retrospective argument was dismissed on this basis.
CJI Khanna stated that “being socialist” in the Indian context only refers to a “welfare state”. “The way we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. In our context, socialism primarily means a welfare state. That is all. It has never prevented the private sector which is thriving well. We have all benefited from it. The word socialism is used in a different context, meaning that the state is a welfare state and must stand for the welfare of the people and shall provide equality of opportunities,” he said.
CJI Khanna is also known for his observations on ‘secularism’. As the Supreme Court judge in August 2023, he called the alleged call for boycott of Muslims as “unacceptable”.
Controversy: Justice Khanna’s elevation to the Supreme Court was a bit controversial since he superseded 32 judges, sparking debates on the collegium system’s selection criteria.
Justice KV Vishwanathan
Born on 26th May 1966, in, Kerala’s Kalpathy, KV Vishwanathan graduated from Coimbatore Law College, Bharathiar University. In the year 2009, the Supreme Court designated Vishwanathan as a Senior Advocate, after 20 years of legal practice. In August 2013, he was appointed the Additional Solicitor General of India who served as ASG till May 2014. In 2023, he was ascended directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court. With this, he became the 10th advocate to be appointed to the Supreme Court without any prior High Court-level judicial experience.
Image via SCI
As a lawyer, KV Vishwanathan represented petitioners in several noted cases like the Right to Privacy and the validity of the Aadhaar Act, the case involving a challenge to WhatsApp’s privacy policy wherein he represented the Internet Freedom Foundation. In addition, Vishwanathan advocated for the recognition of the marriages and rights of transgender people. “Centre says that by our very nature, we cannot procreate. Is procreation a valid defence from keeping us from effects of marriage? None of the marriage statutes prescribe any upper limit for marriage. Women beyond 45, who are unfit for pregnancy, are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples who cannot have children are allowed to marry,” he argued in this case. Notably, Vishwanathan also represented YSRCP leader Jagan Mohan Reddy in the disproportionate assets case filed by the CBI.
As the Supreme Court judge, Justice Vishwanathan delivered certain notable judgments. In the K.P. Khemka v. Haryana SIIDC case, Justice Vishwanathan was involved in deciding whether time-barred debts might be recovered using special legislation rather than civil suits. This case raised important issues about the junction of legislative limitations and recovery mechanisms.
Recently, Justice Vishwanathan alongside Justice BR Gavai directed the Central government to grant a permanent commission to a woman officer serving in the Army Dental Corps. This came as the woman officer had alleged that she was unfairly excluded from the benefits available to her colleagues. The bench noted that it was a case of discrimination and stressed the necessity to implement policies in a fair and consistent manner.
Justice Viswanathan has also been vocal about revising bail proceedings. He raised concern over the alleged abuse of incarceration as a pre-trial punishment and called for reforms to end bail delays, particularly for undertrial inmates. Alongside Justice BR Gavai, while granting relief to Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren’s aide, Prem Prakash, in an illegal mining-related case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, he said that even in PMLA cases, bail should be the norm and jail should be the exception. “Section 45 PMLA does not re-write this principle [that bail is the rule] to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception..” he stated.
Notably, Justice Viswanathan was a member of the SC bench that deemed ‘bulldozer justice’ “unconstitutional” on the 13th November, stating that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench held the verdict that state authorities cannot determine the guilt of a person and alleged crimes cannot be the basis for demolishing a person’s house or properties. Determining the guilt of an individual is the job of the judiciary, the verdict said.
During the hearing of please challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act (1991), Justice Vishwanathan said, civil courts cannot “run a race with the Supreme Court” when a Constitution bench has laid down certain principles regarding the Act.
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar
Born in Hyderabad in 1963, PV Sanjay Kumar obtained his law degree in 1988 and later served as a government pleader from 2000 to 2003. In August 2008, Kumar was elevated as an additional judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In October 2019, despite being the second senior-most judge, in Telangana High Court, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana HC. His transfer was widely opposed by the Telangana Advocates Association given that he was likely to become the next CJI of the state high Court. However, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and later served as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court in 2021.
Justice Sanjay Kumar (Credit: Supreme Court of India)
In the 2024, Mumbai college Hijab ban case, Justice Kumar alongside CJI Khanna stayed the ban questioning why the prohibition had not been applied to other religious markers like tilak and bindi. “Can you forbid someone from wearing a tilak? Is this not included in your guidelines?” Justice Kumar questioned.
In April this year, Justice Kumar alongside Justice Aniruddha Bose allowed Karikho Kri’s appeal and set aside the impugned order in a group of two civil appeals against the Itanagar Bench’s decision, in which the High Court partially allowed the election petition holding Karikho Kri’s election from 44 Tezu (ST) void under Sections 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Bench held that the broad premise that a candidate must lay his life out for scrutiny by the electorate is unacceptable, and the candidate’s ‘right to privacy’ would still exist.
In April 2023, Justice Kumar was a part of the Supreme Court bench that stayed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the Modi surname defamation case and restored his status as a Member of Parliament. While pronouncing the judgement, the 3-judge bench observed that the utterances of Rahul Gandhi were not in “good taste” and said that a person in public life ought to have been more careful while making public speeches. However, questioned why the maximum sentence was given, which led to his disqualification.
In 2021, a division bench of the then Manipur HC CJI Sanjay Kumar and Justice Jamir decided that although India has no proper refugee protection framework, it does grant refuge to refugees coming from neighbouring countries. The court ordered that seven Myanmarese people must initially approach the UNHCR in New Delhi before the Union of India can determine whether they are eligible for refugee status and asylum in India.
In the 2012, Shaik Farid vs Government of Andhra Pradesh case, an Andhra Pradesh HC bench including Justice Sanjay Kumar was to decide whether the term of the Members of the Waqf Board is co-terminus or concurrent with their terms as MPs. In this case, the court held that the expiry of an MP’s tenure or of the state legislature does not impact his elected membership of the Waqf Board.
Places of Worship Act and the “exemption
Back in 1991, the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress regime passed the Places of Worship Act to protect the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, which was already in court. It also provided for the preservation of the religious character of such a place of worship on that particular day.
As per this Act, a site of worship’s religious character must remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947. The law also says that nobody ever shall translate any religious denomination’s holy site into one of a distinct denomination or section. In addition, the law asserts that each and every lawsuit, appeal, or other proceedings pertaining to changing the character of the area of worship pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will be terminated as soon as the legislation becomes effective, meaning there cannot be any further legal proceedings. Furthermore, the act also imposes a positive obligation on the state to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed at the time of independence.
However, the Act also mentions a crucial exception. Legal proceedings can be filed under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 if the change of status occurred after the August 15, 1947 deadline. This prevents judicial proceedings, litigation, and appeals over the possibility of status that occurred after the cut-off date. Furthermore, the law exempts any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. This means that if a place of worship of any religion is designated as an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site, it may be exempt from the Places of Worship Act.
A program by Punjabi singer Ranjit Bawa scheduled to be held at Nalagarh in Himachal Pradesh has been cancelled after protests by Hindu groups. Bawa was to perform at Red cross fair at Nalagarh in Solan district on 15th December.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal had staged a protest against the show earlier this week and had submitted a memorandum to the administration seeking to cancel the show. VHP and Bajrang Dal have accused Ranjit Bawa of hurting the sentiments of Hindus by his actions.
A three-day district-level Red Cross fair has been organized in Nalagarh, which will take place from 13 to 15 December. Cultural programs are being held as part of the fair. The administration had invited Ranjit Bawa for a program on the night of 15 December. But now the administration has cancelled the show, agreeing to the demands of Hindu groups.
The Punjabi singer is accused of using derogatory language for Hindu deities in his songs. The protestors pointed to the song “Mera Kya Kasoor” by Bawa, saying that the song hurt the sentiments of Hindus. Bawa labelled Hindus as casteists in the song in the name of talking against caste discrimination.
Bawa also played the lead role in the Punjabi movie Toofan Singh, which was not certified by the censor board and therefore not released in India. The movie based on Khalistani terrorist Toofan Singh tried to glorify terrorists and present the terrorists as heroes.
Hyderabad police on Friday issued a clarification regarding a letter being circulated in the media requesting police bandobast for December 4 and 5 in connection with the release of his film ‘Pushpa-2’.
In a press release, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad City said, “Clarification regarding the letter being circulating in media addressed by Sandhya Cine Enterprise 70 MM to ACP Chikkadpally requesting bandobust on 04/05-12-2024 in connection with release of Pushpa-2. We receive a lot of requests for bandobast citing visits by some political personalities, film celebrities, religious programs etc., However, it is beyond our resources to provide bandobast for every event”.
Sandhya Cine Enterprise had requested Hyderabad police on December 2 for the arrangement of bandobast on December 4 and 5 in connection with the release of the ‘Pushpa-2.’
Police said that the organiser did not meet any officer and simply submitted the letter. Police also said that the crowd was well in control till the actor arrived.
“In specific cases where a heavy crowd is expected or some popular personality is visiting, the organizer personally visits the police station / ACP / DCP office and briefs about the program depending upon which we provide the bandobust. In this case, the organizer did not meet any officer and simply submitted the letter in the inward section. No details were made available to the police despite this we arranged suitable bandobust for crowd management outside the theatre. The crowd was well in control till the actor arrived,” police said.
Police alleged that the actions of the actor led to a stampede and subsequently the death of a woman.
“He came to the theatre, came out from the sunroof of his vehicle and started waving to the public gathered there. This gesture attracted a lot of the public towards the theatre’s main gate. At the same time, his private security started pushing people to make way for his vehicle. His team was intimated to take him back citing a large public gathering but they didn’t act on it and Allu Arjun was there inside the theatre for more than two hours. Therefore, it is clear that adequate police bandobast was in place, it was his actions which led to this unfortunate incident, in which a lady died and her son is still unconscious on a ventilator even after 9 days of the incident,” police said.
Hyderabad police also dismissed the allegations that the police personnel misbehaved with Allu Arjun at the time of his arrest.
“Another issue is that the police personnel misbehaved with Allu Arjun at the time of arrest is also not true. When police reached his residence, he requested some time to change his clothes. He went inside his bedroom, police personnel waited outside and took him into custody when he came out. There was no use of force or any misbehaviour with him by any police personnel. He was given enough time to interact with his family and wife and he came out and entered the police vehicle,” police further said.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
Twelve people were taken into custody last week in Gujarat for conducting a fictitious Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at a Gandhidham jewellery store. Now, it has been revealed that the gang is led by Abdul Sattar Manjothi, who is the official general secretary of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The fake ED team had conducted a raid at a jewellery store on 2 December that led to the theft of jewelry and cash valued at Rs 22.25 lakh. The group pretended to be ED officials and staged a bogus raid at Radhika Jewellers in Gandhidham on 2nd December and stole the valuables while they were inside the store.
Minister of State for Home Harsh Sanghavi shared the development on X (formerly Twitter) and slammed AAP. He took the main accused’s name and wrote, “Another feat of Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party has come to light. In Gujarat, a party leader created a fake ED team and looted people by becoming its leader. Fake ED team chief caught in Kutch turns out to be Gujarat Aam Aadmi Party leader. This is the real evidence of the misdeeds of Kejriwal’s disciples.”
Video 1: Fake ED Team under police arrest. Photos 2: Captain of Fake ED Team Abdul Sattar, Official General Secretary of AAP.
अरविंद केजरीवाल की आम आदमी पार्टी का एक और कारनामा सामने आया है! गुजरात में पार्टी के नेता ने ईडी की नकली टीम बनाई और उसके कैप्टन बनकर लोगो को लूटा!… pic.twitter.com/Gclq3XpQLP
The minister also shared photographs of Abdul Sattar with senior AAP leaders, including party chief Arvind Kejriwal.
Furthermore, the fake raid team produced bogus identification documents, such as an ID card in the name of Ankit Tiwari, an ED officer. Armed with phoney identification documents, the group entered Radhika Jewellers on the day of the raid and took jewelry and cash estimated at Rs 25.25 lakh. Twelve people have been taken into custody by the police, but Vipin Sharma, one of the perpretrators, is still at large. Authorities have confiscated three cars from the group and discovered gold jewelry priced at Rs 22.27 lakh.
Kutch Police came into action after the businessman filed a complaint. The police informed that the gang included individuals from Ahmedabad, Gandhidham, and Bhuj, and was targeting key businessmen. Upon robbing businessmen in Ahmedabad and Bhuj, the gang decided to defraud retailers in Gandhidham. The gang went to a jewellery store, dressed as ED officials, and conducted ‘raids’ at the businessman’s house and shop. The businessman became suspicious after the ‘raid’ and filed a complaint with the A Division Kutch police.
Police responded promptly and initially arrested two gang members. Preliminary investigations indicated the involvement of more people, and they eventually arrested eight more people in Ahmedabad and Bhuj. Apart from Abdul Sattar Manjothi, others arrested in the case include Bharat Morvadia, Devayat Khachar, Hitesh Thakkar, Vinod Chudasama, Eugene David, Ashish Mishra, Chandraraj Nair, Ajay Debey, Amit Mehta, his wife Nisha Mehta and Shalendra Desai.
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by a Mughal descendent seeking possession of Red Fort. The petitioner Sultana Begum is the widow of the great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II. The appeal was filed against a 2021 decision by a single judge of the high court, which had earlier dismissed her petition,
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the appeal citing long delay of two and half years in filing the plea against the 2021 verdict. The single judge had also dismissed the plea citing delay, as the fort was taken over by the British long ago.
Sultana Begum claimed that the possession of Red Fort was taken away from her forcibly by British East India Company in 1857. The plea had claimed that Begum is the rightful owner of Red Fort, as she inherited the property from her ancestor Bahadur Shah Zafar II.
The plea filed through advocate Vivek More further argued that the Government of India was illegally occupying the Fort. Begum also sought compensation from 1857 till date for alleged illegal occupation of the fort by the Indian govt.
The petition made a request for the Centre to either return the Red Fort to the petitioner or provide compensation dating back to its capture in 1857 after the First War of Independence.
Red Fort, also known as Lal Qila, was commissioned by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan after moving the capital from Agra to Delhi. Originally a red and white marble palace, the fort was plundered during the Nadir Shah’s invasion and most of the artwork and jewels were taken away, including the legendary Peacock Throne.
Later the British removed the marble structures after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and started to use it as a military garrison. The British demolished around 80% structures of the fort, removed all the furniture, and erected stone barracks for army. Jewels and artwork left behind after the Nadir Shah invasion were taken to England, and many of the are in the British Museum.
After independence, Red Fort remained to be used as a military base. However in 2003, the fort was transferred to the Archaeological Survey of India for restoration and conservation by the Vajpayee government.
Hours after the arrest of actor Allu Arjun in the city of Hyderabad in connection with the death of a woman in a stampede at Sandhya Theater, a letter by the screen authorities has come to the fore raising questions on the Hyderabad Police. The theatre management on 2nd December reportedly had written a letter to the Hyderabad police seeking police deployment for the screening of the recently released movie ‘Pushpa 2’.
Letter emerges showing Sandhya theatre seeking police bandobast on 4th Dec citing clearly that the movie starcast will be present for the film screening, which could lead to heavy crowding – letter has the stamp & signature of the… https://t.co/wmIqKakmsEpic.twitter.com/QvShG7gqo2
The letter stated that the special screening for the movie was scheduled for 4th December and the star cast including the directors and producers of the movie would be present for the screening. Amid this, the theater management said that a massive fan crowd would gather at the premises. “We request for an arrangement of police bandobast on 4th December and 5th December at Sandhya 70 MM theatre,” the letter read.
Photos of the letter also showed that the letter has been received and stamped by the Hyderabad police.
Notably, the screening of the movie was scheduled on 4th December and the theater management had requested for the police deployment 2 days ago. Despite this actor Allu Arjun’s arrival caused a stampede situation in the theater premises resulting in the death of a woman fan. The deceased was later identified as 39-year-old Revathi who had come for the special screening with her family.
The woman and her son were stuck in the stampede before they fell unconscious. Later they were taken to the hospital where the woman was declared dead. The son meanwhile is undergoing treatment at the hospital.
The actor had earlier promised that he would bear the cost of the child’s treatment and would offer Rs 25 lakhs to the grieving family.
Following this, an FIR was filed against the Sandhya theater and two of the managers of Allu Arun for mismanagement. Earlier, the police had stated that the stampede was caused by the sudden appearance of the actor at the theatre for the premiere on 4th December. Police said that neither Allu Arjun’s team nor the theatre informed police that the actor would be visiting the theatre to attend the premiere of Pushpa 2.
Police also accused the Sandhya Theatre management of not making any arrangements for the actor’s visit, which caused the stampede. There was no separate entry and exit for the actor and his team at the theatre. When Arjun arrived with his security, the crowd tried to enter the theatre with him. At that time, his security allegedly tried to push the people away, which deteriorated the situation and led to a stampede. The theatre’s main gate also collapsed during the incident.
However, the letter by Sandhya management out in public today, seeking police deployment two days prior to the event date raises questions about the state police.
Officials from the Hyderabad Police Commissioner’s Task Force and the Chikkadpally police station arrived at Arjun’s house on Friday morning and took him into custody. Sandhya Theatre’s owner and two employees have already been arrested.
Allu Arjun has been booked under BNS section 105 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 118(1) r/w 3(5) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt). In an update to the case, Allu Arjun has filed a plea to quash the FIR and requested a stay in the further proceedings. The case will now be heard by the High Court.
Questions on the motive of Hyderabad police
Though the filing of an FIR against the actor after the woman’s death seemed like regular proceedings, the dramatic arrest and the events henceforth have raised some questions for the Hyderabad police.
BJP leader Bandi Sanjay has condemned the arrest of Allu Arjun, stating that preventing the stampede was the job of the law enforcement authorities, and that it is wrong to blame Allu Arjun for the woman’s death.
“National Award-winning actor Allu Arjun, lifted straight from his bedroom without even being given time to change, is a disgraceful act of mismanagement and disrespect. A star of his stature, who brought global recognition to Indian cinema, deserved better treatment. The tragic death of a woman in the stampede at Sandhya theatre is deeply unfortunate, but it only underscores the Congress government’s failure to manage the massive crowd“, Bandi Sanjay posted on X.
National Award-winning actor Allu Arjun, lifted straight from his bedroom without even being given time to change, is a disgraceful act of mismanagement and disrespect.
A star of his stature, who brought global recognition to Indian cinema, deserved better treatment.
BRS leader KTR has also condemned the arrest and has posted that the stampede and the woman’s death cannot be blamed on the actor.
“Arrest of National Award-winning star Allu Arjun is the pinnacle of insecurity of the rulers! I totally sympathize with the victims of the stampede but who failed really? Treating Allu Arjun Garu as a common criminal is uncalled for especially for something he isn’t directly responsible”, KTR posted.
Arrest of National Award winning star Allu Arjun is the pinnacle of insecurity of the rulers!
I totally sympathize with the victims of the stampede but who failed really?
The recent news that the Sandhya theatre had already informed the police about the arrival of Pushpa 2 stars and makers at the theatre and requested police arrangements to manage the crowd, has indeed raised questions on the conduct of the authorities and the sudden arerst of the actor.
)
