YouTuber Diya Krishna faces extortion, abduction charges amid business dispute
Thiruvananthapuram: Social media influencer and entrepreneur Diya Krishna has landed in legal trouble after being accused of extortion and abduction, following her allegations of fraud against her own staff. The 27-year-old was seen emotionally distressed alongside her father, actor and BJP leader Krishnakumar, who claimed his daughter was scammed and expressed support for her.
The controversy comes just days after Diya promoted new arrivals at her imitation jewellery store ‘Oh By Ozy’ to her 1.3 million Instagram followers. Known for her lifestyle content, Diya has now taken to social media to present her side, claiming to have documentary evidence and urging her followers to file complaints in support of her case.
Diya Krishna rose to popularity during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 through TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube videos created alongside her family. The family’s online fame brought them YouTube’s Silver Play Button and several brand deals, turning Diya into a full-time influencer and later, a businesswoman.
However, her journey has not been without controversy. In 2024, Diya’s father faced backlash for narrating a caste-based discriminatory practice in Kerala, which many called insensitive. Diya’s attempt to defend him was also widely criticised. Around the same period, she drew ridicule for a travel vlog in which she misrepresented the history of the East India Company. A follow-up video of her feeding pigeons with her father — accompanied by sarcastic remarks — only intensified the backlash.
Previously, the Krishna family was also accused of bullying by alleged former classmates, though the family denied all such claims. Despite repeated controversies, Diya retains a strong fan base.
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.
Neutrality of polls can't be assured if EC dependent on contestants: Justice Nagarathna
New Delhi (PTI): Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna, while highlighting that the Election Commission is the primary institution entrusted with maintaining the integrity of polls, has said if those who conduct elections are dependent on those who contest them, the neutrality of the process cannot be assured.
The apex court judge raised a critical concern regarding the structural independence of those tasked with overseeing the ballot while delivering the Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at the Chanakya Law University in Patna on Saturday.
Citing a 1995 verdict where the Supreme Court recognised the Election Commission as a constitutional authority of high significance, entrusted with ensuring the integrity of elections, she said, "The concern, once again, was structural: if those who conduct elections are dependent on those who contest them, the neutrality of the process cannot be assured."
Justice Nagarathna said elections are not merely periodic events but a mechanism through which political authority is constituted.
"Our constitutional democracy has amply demonstrated smooth changes in government due to elections being held on a timely basis. Control over that process is, in effect, control over the conditions of political competition itself," she said.
The Supreme Court judge said power is not exercised only through formal institutions but also through the processes that sustain them, including elections, public finance, and regulation.
"A constitutional structure that seeks to restrain power must therefore go beyond its classical forms and address these fourth-branch institutions. A set of institutions, while not always fitting within the classical tripartite scheme, is nonetheless central to the maintenance of constitutional order," she said.
Justice Nagarathna said the unmistakable lesson of history is that constitutional collapse occurs through the disabling of its structure, and the violation of rights merely follows.
"The dismantling of structure, in turn, occurs when institutions stop checking each other. At that moment, elections may continue, courts may function, laws may be enacted by Parliament, and yet, power is effectively not restrained because the structural discipline no longer exists," she said.
The apex court judge also urged the Centre to view states as "coordinates and not subordinates" and asserted that the separation of powers was a "constitutional arrangement of co-equals."
Justice Nagarathna also called for keeping aside "inter-party differences" in the matter of "Centre-state relations", underscoring that governance must not depend on "which party may be ruling the Centre and which other party may be ruling at the state level".
