Centre should grant protection to Kunal Kamra: Sanjay Raut
Mumbai, Mar 29 (PTI): Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Saturday demanded Central protection for comedian Kunal Kamra, facing flak and investigation over his jibe against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde, on the similar lines it had protected actor Kangana Ranaut in 2020.
Multiple FIRs were registered against Kamra for his "traitor" jibe at Shiv Sena head and Deputy CM Eknath Shinde during a show, leading to the ransacking of a studio by Shiv Sena workers last Sunday.
On Friday, the Madras High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Kamra, against whom Mumbai Police had issued two notices seeking his personal appearance for questioning.
Raut also welcomed the Supreme Court order on quashing an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for allegedly posting a clip of a poem advocating the protection of freedom of speech and expression.
He said like Pratapgarhi, Kamra is also an artist, poet, and satirist.
"Kamra should come to Mumbai to put forth his point (before the police). The Centre protected Kangana Ranaut (fearing) that we would attack her. I demand that Kunal Kamra also get a special protection," Raut told reporters.
In 2020, a portion of Ranaut's bungalow in Bandra was demolished by the Mumbai civic body for alleged alterations when Uddhav Thackeray was the chief minister, triggering an outrage and verbal spat between the actor and Sena leaders.
The Centre subsequently extended protection to Ranaut, currently a BJP MP from Himachal Pradesh.
Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw on Thursday justified the summons issued to the stand-up comedian, asserting that it should be done if it is required by the law of the land.
Speaking at the Times Now Summit in New Delhi, Vaishnaw said, “If the law of the land requires it, it should be done,” when asked if summoning of Kamra by the police was “too extreme” an action.
Vaishnaw said while the Constitution granted citizens certain rights, they were accompanied by some safeguards.
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.
SC refuses to adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
