AIADMK slams Rajini, says people will decide who is strong and weak
Chennai,Nov 14: Slamming Tamil superstar Rajinikanth for his remarks that Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to be a "strong" man electorally, the ruling AIADMK Wednesday said people would decide who is "strong" and "weak" during elections as they were the "reviewing authorities."
Senior AIADMK leader and state Fisheries Minister D Jayakumar was responding to Rajinikanth's statement Tuesday that Prime Minister Modi seemed to be a "strong" man electorally, which was evident from a mega alliance trying to shape up against the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre.
"Whether strong or weak, election is the answer for that. People review us....they are the reviewing authorities for every party. They will decide, not you and me," he told reporters here.
People would review the AIADMK MPs' performance in next year's Lok Sabha polls, as well as during the assembly elections in 2021, he added.
Supporters of respective parties may say good things about their party led governments, but people would "assess" their performance, especially during elections, he said.
"We may say that our children are good, but it is the teacher/headmaster who assesses their activities. The people are those teachers/headmasters," he added.
Rajinikanth's remarks had come amid speculation that opposition parties were looking at a mega coalition against the Modi government for the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
"When 10 persons go against one person, who is stronger? Those 10 or the person they are aligning against? If 10 persons declare a war against one man, who is stronger?," he had asked when questioned on the possibility of such an opposition alliance.
Asked if Modi was "stronger" and whether this was what he implied through his statement, the actor said he "can't be more clear".
Jayakumar, responding to the political developments in neighbouring Sri Lanka, said one cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another country.
However, considering the overall welfare of minority Tamils, "our umbilical chord relations", was important, he said.
Sri Lanka's Parliament on Wednesday passed a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa who was installed by President Maithripala Sirisena in a controversial move.
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.
'How can an accused seek police protection': Uttarakhand High Court asks 'Mohd Deepak'
_vb_44.jpeg)
Nainital (PTI): The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday reprimanded gym operator Deepak Kumar, who shot into the limelight as “Mohammad Deepak” for taking on Bajrang Dal activists allegedly harassing a Muslim shopkeeper, and asked how can an accused seek police protection.
A single-bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing Kumar's plea seeking quashing of the FIR, verbally reprimanded him, objecting to his inclusion of unnecessary requests like seeking police protection and action against police officers for alleged 'biased' conduct.
The bench termed such petitions as pressure tactics aimed at influencing the ongoing investigation and sensationalising the entire matter.
The court also questioned the petitioner's justification for seeking police protection when he himself is a "suspected accused."
The court on Tuesday directed the state authorities to file status reports on the action taken in all the FIRs related to the incident.
A case has been registered against Kumar for rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace in connection with an incident that occurred on January 26 in Kotdwar.
Deepak Kumar allegedly clashed with Bajrang Dal members who objected to a Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, naming his shop "Baba" in Kotdwar. A video of the incident went viral on social media.
Kumar has approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
In the petition, Kumar also requested the court direct the registration of an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS against those who allegedly made the hate speeches. The petition also requests police protection for Kumar and his family and a departmental inquiry against police officers allegedly responsible for partisan conduct.
During the hearing, the high court expressed concern about the validity of such petitions, saying they were a way to "pressure the investigating agency."
The investigating officer also stated that the petitioner was not in any danger.
The high court questioned the petitioner's rationale for requesting protection despite being a suspected accused himself.
The court remarked that the petitioner is a 'suspected accused' today, and how can a person who is under investigation and is a 'suspected accused' receive police protection.
The bench stated that such relief at this stage is completely unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to pressure the investigating agency.
The court also took a serious view of the request for a departmental inquiry against the police officers and remarked that in the absence of any evidence on record to prove the allegations, making such a request while the inquiry was pending was merely an attempt to influence the proceedings.
During the hearing, it was brought to the court's attention that two FIRs were registered based on the petitioner's complaint. If there is any such complaint, it will also be presented to the court on Friday.
During the hearing, the high court also inquired about the funds the petitioner allegedly received from his supporters following the incident.
According to Deepak, he received approximately Rs 80,000 in donations after the incident, following which he ceased all activity on the account.
_vb_42.jpeg)
