A govt. employee has become a bridge between accused?
Gauri Lankesh murder case
Bengaluru, July 25: Government employee Rajesh D Bangera (50) who was arrested in Gauri Lankesh murder case as the 10th accused in the case, has worked as a bridge between some accused and gave pistol training to the accused.
SIT sources said that Rajesh Bangera had given training to main accused Parashuram Waghmore in Madikeri forests. Though he was working as the second divisional clerk in the Education department, he has connection with major criminals of Goa, Sindagi, Mumbai and Pune. Because of his close association with the criminals, he had expertise in using guns. He has given training on method of shooting in pistol, the distance and other techniques, SIT sources said.
He has become a bridge
He was so close to another main accused in the case Amol Kale and introduced fake doctor Mohan Nayak to Kale and worked as a bridge between them.
Supplied bullets
It is said that the bullets recovered from the body of Gauri Lankesh and others were supplied by Rajesh Bangera. The accused admitted before the SIT officers that he had given more than 20 live bullets to Amol Kale before the killing of Gauri Lankesh, it is said.
Meanwhile, the SIT officials have recorded the statements of the close associates and family members of the accused including Rajesh Bangera and checking their mobile phones, sources said.
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.
Union government assumes full control over TV ratings, TRAI role curtailed: Report
New Delhi: The Union government has assumed full control over television audience measurement, removing the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) from oversight of the ratings system that underpins the country’s ₹36,000 crore television advertising market, according to a report published on Wednesday.
The report in Mint said the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) now has exclusive authority over the framework governing how television ratings are measured and regulated. TRAI had been entrusted with oversight of TV ratings in 2012 during the UPA government’s tenure. TRAI is no longer mentioned in the relevant policy document, effectively vesting sole authority in the MIB.
The report said TRAI will continue to regulate other aspects of broadcasting, including channel pricing, advertising caps, interconnection and distribution norms, service quality and compliance standards. Its role in determining how ratings agencies track viewing behaviour has been withdrawn.
Television Rating Points (TRPs), which reflect viewership patterns, guide advertisers in deciding where to allocate spending across channels and time slots.
A government source quoted in the report said the ministry could modify TRAI’s decisions even when the regulator oversaw broadcasting.
A former CEO of Prasar Bharati told the newspaper that the MIB has historically regulated rating agencies through licensing and guidelines, and by holding them accountable under existing norms.
During its tenure overseeing ratings, TRAI had taken decisions affecting the broadcast sector, which included capping advertising time at 12 minutes per hour following complaints about excessive commercial breaks and it now remains unclear how these matters will be addressed under the revised arrangement.
Satya N. Gupta, former principal advisor at TRAI, was quoted as saying that merging regulatory functions with policy oversight and removing an independent regulator from the process was a retrograde step.
TRAI’s involvement in broadcasting had earlier attracted criticism as well. In 2012, its consultation paper on quantitative limits on television advertising was viewed by some as overlapping with the Advertising Standards Council of India’s code. Subsequent recommendations covering television audience measurement, ownership of news channels and issues such as paid news had also raised concerns among sections of the industry.
Television ratings have faced scrutiny in recent years, including during the controversy involving the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), where officials of the ratings body were prosecuted over allegations of manipulation of viewership data.
