ED questions Shikhar Dhawan in illegal betting app case
New Delhi (PTI): Former Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan was on Thursday questioned for around eight hours by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged illegal betting app-linked money laundering case, official sources said.
He entered the office of the federal probe agency in central Delhi around 11 am and left after 7 PM.
The agency recorded his statement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as part of this investigation linked to an "illegal" betting app named 1xBet, the sources said.
The 39-year-old former India opener is understood to have been linked to the app through certain endorsements. The ED wants to understand his links with this app during the questioning.
The agency is probing multiple such cases involving illegal betting apps that are alleged to have duped numerous people and investors worth crores of rupees or have evaded a huge amount of taxes.
Last month, former cricketer Suresh Raina was questioned in this case by the federal probe agency.
More such sportspersons and celebrities are expected to be questioned by the agency in the coming days.
The Union government has banned real-money online gaming by bringing a legislation recently.
According to estimates by market analysis firms and probe agencies, there are about 22 crore Indian users in various such online betting apps out of which half (about 11 crore) are regular users.
The online betting app market in India is worth over USD 100 billion which is growing at the rate of 30 per cent, according to experts.
The government recently told Parliament that it has issued 1,524 orders from 2022 till June 2025 to block online betting and gambling platforms.
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
