Will Smith gets 10-year Oscars ban over Chris Rock slap
Los Angeles(AP): The motion picture academy on Friday banned Will Smith from attending the Oscars or any other academy event for 10 years following his slap of Chris Rock at the Academy Awards.
The move comes after a meeting of the academy's Board of Governors to discuss a response to Smith's actions. It is unclear whether the ban would apply to future nominations.
“The 94th Oscars were meant to be a celebration of the many individuals in our community who did incredible work this past year; however, those moments were overshadowed by the unacceptable and harmful behavior we saw Mr. Smith exhibit on stage,” the academy said in a statement.
“I accept and respect the Academy's decision,” Smith said in response. He pre-emptively resigned from the academy last week during the run-up to the meeting, calling his actions "shocking, painful, and inexcusable.”
The academy also apologized for its handling of the situation and allowing Smith to stay and accept his best actor award for “King Richard.” “During our telecast, we did not adequately address the situation in the room. For this, we are sorry,” the academy said.
“This was an opportunity for us to set an example for our guests, viewers and our Academy family around the world, and we fell short - unprepared for the unprecedented. ”
In a statement in the days following the Oscars, the academy said Smith was asked to leave the ceremony but refused.
But it's not clear how the message was delivered to Smith or what form it took, and several media outlets reported that he was never formally told to leave the Dolby Theatre. The Los Angeles Times reported in a story Thursday that Oscars producer Will Packer told Smith: “Officially, we don't want you to leave. We want you to stay.”
The ban means Smith will not be presenting one of the major awards at next year's Oscars, as is tradition for the best actor winner.
The academy in its Friday statement also expressed “deep gratitude to Mr. Rock for maintaining his composure under extraordinary circumstances.”
The academy's statement did not address whether Smith could be nominated for Oscars during his 10-year ban. Nor did it take any action to revoke Smith's Academy Award.
The academy has not revoked Oscars from expelled members Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski.
With his resignation last week, Smith lost the ability to vote for nominees and winners.
At the March 27 Academy Awards, Rock came out to present the best documentary Oscar and made jokes about several attendees, including Smith's wife, Jada Pinkett Smith.
“Jada, I love you. G.I. Jane 2,' can't wait to see it,” Rock said.
Pinkett Smith, who has spoken publicly about her hair loss condition, alopecia, had a closely shaved head similar to that of Demi Moore in the 1997 movie.
Smith strode from his front-row seat on to the stage and smacked Rock, stunning the comedian, the theater crowd and viewers at home.
Many thought it was a planned gag set up by the show or the men themselves, but the seriousness of the situation set in after Smith returned to his seat and angrily twice shouted at Rock to “keep my wife's name out your (expletive) mouth.” Rock said he had no interest in pursuing charges when asked by police backstage.
Smith took the stage again less than hour later to accept his Oscar, tearfully apologizing to the academy but notably omitting any mention of Rock. He compared himself to Richard Williams, the man he played in “King Richard,” “a fierce defender of his family.” Later that night, Smith danced with his trophy and his family and rapped along with his own songs in celebration of his win at the Vanity Fair post-Oscars party.
Rock has only briefly addressed the attack publicly, saying at one comedy concert in Boston this week that he was still “kind of processing what happened.”
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.
NHAI may consider asking road contractors to setup gaushalas for stray animals on highways: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday told the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to consider asking concessionaires involved in construction of roads to set up a gaushala (cowshed) under CSR responsibility to take care of stray animals entering the highways.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria which reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking modification of the November 7 order of the top court on relocation and sterilisation of stray dogs expressed its unhappiness over the efforts of Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in complying with its direction.
The top court said the efforts of the Punjab government in sterilising 100 stray dogs a day was inadequate and said it is "needle in a haystack".
The bench asked the counsel appearing for NHAI to also develop an app where people can report sightings of stray animals on the national highways.
"You can also ask the concessionaires to setup a gaushala after say 50 km where these stray animals can be taken care of under the corporate social responsibility," the bench told the counsel.
The counsel agreed to look into the possibility of developing the app and asking the concessionaire to set up gaushalas.
The NHAI counsel pointed that there were over 1300 vulnerable locations on the National Highways and the authority is dealing with it to avoid any road mishaps.
He said that most of the states have taken steps in removing stray cattle from the highways but still few like Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Rajasthan are yet to come forward to deal with the issue.
Dealing with the compliance of its earlier directions, the top court was told by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Rajasthan that sterilisation centres and fencing of education institutional areas have been done in the state.
The bench pointed out that as per the affidavit of the state government only 45 vans are there for catching stray dogs and said it was insufficient.
"Around 20 vans will be required for Jaipur alone. You need to ramp up the facilities and increase the number of vehicles for different cities. The arguments have been made that the CSVR (Capture, Sterilise, Vaccinate and Release) formula under the ABC rules has to be implemented. Unless there are more vehicles and manpower, how will you manage that," Justice Mehta asked.
Bhati said, "We have sought more budgetary allocations to deal with the issue."
The bench said, "If you don't tackle this problem today it will keep on magnifying. Every year the population of stray dogs will go up by 10-15 per cent. You are increasing your own problems by avoiding this. As Punjab said, they are doing sterilisation for 100 dogs a day. This is no use. It is a needle in a haystack."
The counsel for the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) informed the bench that after November 7, last year, order of the apex court there was surge in applications from NGOs and private parties for opening of sterilisation centres and animal shelters.
"There are certain pending applications. There are more than 250 applications filed after the November 7 order...They have not yet been given recognition by us," the counsel said.
She pointed out inaccuracies in data reported by many state governments on sterilisation of stray dogs and said that in one State the dog population is less while the data for sterilisation is more.
Justice Nath while asking the parties to file their written submissions as early as possible asked the AWBI, "Our only request to the AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you should process them expeditiously. Either you accept it or reject them but take a decision."
At the outset, senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal who has been appointed as amicus curiae summarised the steps taken by states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan in complying with the orders and pointed out the deficiencies.
On Wednesday, the top court flagged its concern over state governments not complying with its directions to enhance their stray dogs sterilisation capacity, saying, "They are all building castles in the air."
The top court was hearing several petitions seeking modification of its November 7, 2025, order directing authorities to remove stray animals from the institutional areas and roads.
On January 13, the top court said it would ask states to pay a "heavy compensation" for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable for such cases.
The court also flagged concerns over the non-implementation of norms on stray animals for the last five years.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog-bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It had also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to their original place.
The court had directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
