Tamil actor Vishal alleges corruption in CBFC's Mumbai office, I&B orders inquiry
New Delhi (PTI): The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on Friday ordered an immediate inquiry into Tamil actor Vishal's allegations that he had to pay Rs 6.5 lakh to the CBFC's Mumbai office for the screening and certification of the Hindi version of his film "Mark Antony".
Vishal levelled the allegations of corruption against the Mumbai office of CBFC in a post on microblogging site X on Thursday.
In a post on Friday, the ministry said the government had zero tolerance for corruption
"The issue of corruption in CBFC brought forth by actor @VishalKOfficial is extremely unfortunate. The government has zero tolerance for corruption and strictest action will be taken against anyone found involved.
"A senior officer from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has been deputed to Mumbai to conduct an inquiry today itself," the I&B ministry tweeted on Friday.
The ministry also urged people to cooperate and share information about "any other instance of harassment by CBFC".
Official sources said Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur has directed maximising use of technology to ensure transparency in slotting and implementation of faceless systems wherever possible.
Vishal's sci-fi film "Mark Antony", directed by Adhik Ravichandran, was released in Hindi on Thursday. The movie also features S J Suryah, Ritu Varma, Sunil, Selvaraghavan and Abhinaya.
In his post on X, Vishal made an appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde to investigate the "scam" that transpired at the CBFC's Mumbai office.
"Due to some technical issues, we applied for the Hindi censor certificate online at the last minute. But we were taken aback by what happened at the CBFC office in Mumbai.
"On Monday, when my person visited the office, there was an option given to us -- to pay Rs. 6.5 lakh for the certification the same day. We were left with no other option. We were asked to pay Rs 3 lakhs first, just for the screening. The rest Rs 3.5 lakh were for the certificate," the actor had claimed.
Vishal also claimed that a woman official told their team that it was a common practice at the CBFC where filmmakers would pay money for receiving censor clearance.
"Those who want the certificate in 15 days, they have to pay Rs 4 lakh. We had no other option, so we paid the money in two instalments and I got the certificate. Today, my film was released in north India. But this is very saddening.
"If this is the case in government offices, I really request higher authorities to look into this matter," the actor claimed.
In a statement, Indian Film and Television Directors' Assocation (IFTDA) expressed concern over the allegations made against CBFC officials and demanded a CBI enquiry.
"If any official is found guilty serious action should be taken against the perpetrator of this crime of extortion... This is a dangerous trend which will be the reason for bringing bad name to CBFC," IFTDA president Ashoke Pandit wrote in a letter to Thakur.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Excise policy case: HC gives more time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge remarks
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
"I don't know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written."
"By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing," the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate's counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency's petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge's observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED's case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
"Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read," the judge observed.
Raju also urged the court to direct that the observations of the trial court would not be relied upon by the accused in related proceedings. "It is a short date. Let them reply," the court responded.
On March 10, the court had asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED's plea.
In the petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It said the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard.
"If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand ... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," the ED plea said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...," it added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, it said.
In its order, the trial court highlighted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
It said the issue assumed heightened significance where an accused was arrested for the offence of money laundering and thereafter required to surmount the stringent twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration even at the pre-trial stage.
It further said that despite the settled legal position that the offence of money laundering cannot independently subsist and requires the foundational edifice of a legally sustainable predicate offence, the prevailing practice revealed a disturbing inversion.
Underlining that the objective of PMLA was undoubtedly legitimate and compelling, the trial judge mentioned that statutory power, however wide, could not eclipse constitutional safeguards.
