More opposition MPs in touch with BJP; 'our tally will rise soon', claims Maharashtra minister
Mumbai, Jul 20 (PTI): Maharashtra Water Resources Minister Girish Mahajan on Sunday claimed that some MPs in the opposition camp, particularly those belonging to Shiv Sena (UBT), are in contact with the BJP and hinted that the party's tally in Parliament will rise in the coming days.
"The number of MPs of the BJP will increase further. Earlier, four MPs were in touch with us; now three more are likely to join. These MPs belong to various parties, but a majority are from the UBT faction of Shiv Sena," Mahajan told reporters after taking darshan at the famous Pandharpur temple in Solapur district.
In a swipe at Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, the BJP leader said the "Thackeray brand" has lost its relevance in Maharashtra.
In an interview with "Saamana" executive editor Sanjay Raut, Uddhav has stated that Thackeray is not just a brand, but an identity of Maharashtra, Marathi manoos and Hindu pride.
"The Thackeray brand has lost relevance a log time ago. Balasaheb Thackeray was the leader of the real Shiv Sena, but the situation changed after Uddhav Thackeray allied with the Congress in 2019. He abandoned Balasaheb’s ideology. That’s when the Thackeray brand ceased to exist,” Mahajan said.
Reacting to claims made by some opposition leaders that the previous Eknath Shinde-led government was formed due to certain "CDs", Mahajan criticised the Congress leadership, particularly former state unit chief Nana Patole.
"There is a lot of random shooting in the air. They keep talking about some CD from Nashik, or some pen drive. If you have something concrete, submit it to the Speaker (of the Assembly). What is the use of making statements without showing evidence? Anyone can say anything,” he said.
Asked about the recent meeting between Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in the Assembly premises, Mahajan downplayed the political speculation around it.
"Two leaders met during the legislature session, had some light conversation, and that’s about it. There’s no need for bitterness all the time or making negative remarks,” he said.
Patole had alleged a "honeytrap" scandal involving state officials posted in Thane, Nashik and the Mantralaya (secretariat) in Mumbai.
Reacting to the charge, Fadnavis told the legislative assembly on Friday that no case of blackmailing through honeytraps has come to light in the state.
A woman had lodged a complaint in Nashik, but later it was withdrawn, said Fadnavis, who handles the home portfolio.
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
