Bribery accusation: TMC maintains distance from Mahua Moitra
Kolkata (PTI): The Trinamool Congress has decided to maintain distance from the controversy surrounding its MP Mahua Moitra, who has been facing allegations of taking bribes for raising questions in Parliament.
Darshan Hiranandani, the CEO of real estate-to-energy group Hiranandani, who allegedly paid Moitra to raise questions in Parliament about Adani Group, recently claimed in a signed affidavit that she targeted Gautam Adani to "malign and embarrass" Prime Minister Narendra Modi whose "impeccable reputation" gave opposition no opportunity to attack him.
A copy of the affidavit was reviewed by PTI.
"The party has nothing to say on this issue. We think the person around whom this controversy is revolving is best suited to react to this," TMC's West Bengal general secretary and spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said.
Another senior TMC leader, who did not wish to be named, said the party leadership is unwilling to get into a controversy and thus "will be maintaining distance from it."
Reacting to the development, BJP leader Rahul Sinha said West Bengal's ruling party can't shrug off its responsibility.
"The TMC always tries to shrug off its responsibility whenever its leaders are either arrested or land into trouble. The TMC needs to explain whether it supports Mahua Moitra or not," he said.
Earlier in the week, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai alleged that Moitra had accepted favours from Hiranandani in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. In response, Moitra filed a defamation suit against them before the Delhi High Court.
Dubey's complaint has been referred to Parliament's Ethics Committee by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla.
Vinod Sonkar, the chairman of the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, had said he had received the sworn-in affidavit from Hiranandani.
Moitra, however, has raised questions over the credibility of Hiranandani's affidavit, alleging that it was "drafted by the PMO" and he was forced to sign it after being "threatened" with "total shut down" of his family's businesses.
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.
Pleas against ''The Kerala Story 2'' premature, misconceived: Producer to Kerala HC
Kochi (PTI): The producer of 'The Kerala Story 2-Goes Beyond' has told the Kerala High Court that the pleas opposing the film’s release are “premature, misconceived and not maintainable”.
The submission was made by the film’s producer, Vipul Amrutlal Shah, in an affidavit filed before the court on Tuesday.
Opposing the petitions, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Wednesday said an alternative statutory remedy of seeking revision was available to the petitioners.
It also told the court that the pleas ought to have been filed as public interest litigations, which are heard by a division bench.
The petitioners contended that the film aims to tarnish the image of Kerala and harm the reputation of its people.
They further alleged that the teaser and trailer were misleading and depicted on social media content that cannot be shown in theatres.
“They (producers) are doing indirectly, through the teaser and trailer, what they cannot do directly,” advocate Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, appearing for one of the petitioners, Sreedev Namboodiri, told the court.
After hearing arguments for over an hour and a half, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the matter would be taken up again on Thursday and orally asked the producers not to render the proceedings infructuous, noting that the petitioners’ apprehensions “were probably genuine”.
The court observed that a revision can be sought only after watching the film, by which time it may become redundant.
“The damage may already be done by then,” it said.
Justice Thomas said the matter would be heard again on Thursday at 9.45 am.
During the hearing, the court said it cannot pass orders regarding the teaser and trailer, as no specific relief has been sought in that regard.
It also observed that there is nothing objectionable about the film’s title by itself, unless it is linked to the content shown in the teaser and trailer.
In his affidavit, Shah contended that the CBFC is the sole expert authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to examine films in their entirety and certify them for public exhibition.
“The supervisory jurisdiction of this court does not extend to substituting its own assessment of a film’s content for the expert judgment of the certifying authority,” he said.
He denied the allegations in the pleas and termed them “an abuse and misuse of the process of law”.
Referring to the plea filed by Namboodiri, Shah alleged that it was filed “with a malafide intention and an ulterior motive to gain financial benefits”.
He also said the teaser was released 16 days before the filing of the plea.
He argued that the exhibition of a certified film cannot be restrained based solely on a two-minute teaser, without examining the complete film.
He further said that granting prior restraint without examining the full film, without any prima facie finding of illegality in the CBFC’s decision, and based only on a teaser, would cause “catastrophic and irreversible economic harm” to the producer, exhibitors and distribution partners.
“The film is slated for release in over 1,800 theatres across India and overseas,” Shah said.
On the title, he said the qualifier “Goes Beyond” was “not decorative”.
“It is a deliberate and conspicuous textual signal… that the film’s narrative extends beyond the geography of Kerala.
“The definite article ‘The’ refers to the first film in the franchise and does not restrict the subject matter to Kerala alone,” the affidavit said.
He also argued that if there is apprehension of protests or law-and-order issues, it is for the state to address them and not a ground to halt the release of a film.
“A scenario where any individual or group can effectively veto the exhibition of a certified film by threatening disorder would render meaningless both the CBFC certification process and the constitutional guarantee of free expression,” the affidavit stated.
The court had on Tuesday orally observed that the teaser and trailer depict Kerala, a state known for communal harmony, in a negative light.
It also noted that using the state’s name and claiming the film is based on facts could lead to communal tensions.
Three separate pleas have sought to quash the CBFC certificate granted to the film, which is scheduled for release on February 27.
Besides quashing the certification, Namboodiri’s plea also seeks modifications, including reconsideration of the film’s title.
The petitioner has alleged that the film was certified without due compliance with the statutory requirements under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
