Kolkata Police questions actor Mithun Chakraborty over 'inciteful speech'
Kolkata: The Kolkata Police on Wednesday began virtually questioning actor-turned-BJP leader Mithun Chakraborty in connection with a complaint accusing him of inciting post-poll violence in West Bengal through his speeches.
Officers of the Manicktala police station in north Kolkata began questioning the actor, who is currently in Pune, at 10.20 am.
"Till the last information was received, the questioning was still underway," an officer told PTI.
An FIR lodged at the police station alleged that the actor had used dialogues like 'Marbo ekhane lash porbe shoshane' (Will hit you here and the body will land in the crematorium) and 'Ek chobole chobi' (A snakebite will turn you into a photograph, meaning will kill you) at a rally here after joining the BJP on March 7.
The complainant alleged that these dialogues caused post-poll violence in the state.
The Calcutta High Court had directed Chakraborty to provide his email address to the state so that he can make himself available by way of video conference for questioning in connection with the complaint where he has been accused of promoting enmity between different groups, an intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, and making statements conducing to public mischief.
Clashes were reported from several parts of the state following the declaration of assembly poll results on May 2, in which the Trinamool Congress returned to power for the third time.
On prayers by the lawyers of the petitioner and the prosecution on Friday for taking up the matter on a later date, the court fixed the matter for hearing on June 18.
Chakraborty had filed the petition before the high court seeking quashing of the case registered against him for alleged incitement to post-poll violence through his speeches, wherein he had uttered popular dialogues from his films.
The actor had claimed that the utterances of such film dialogues were only recreational and that he is innocent and in no way connected with any offence as alleged by the complainant.
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 dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
