Samantha, Chaitanya say divorce was 'mutual' decision after T'gana min links KTR with their split
New Delhi (PTI): Former actor couple Samantha Ruth Prabhu and Naga Chaitanya hit back at Telangana minister Konda Surekha after her remarks that senior BRS leader KT Ramarao was responsible for their divorce sparked controversy, saying her claims are "false" and the decision to part ways was "mutual".
On her Instagram Story, Samantha wrote there was "no political conspiracy" behind her split with Chaitanya, which was announced in 2021.
The actor, known for web series "The Family Man 2" and films "Theri", and "Eega", implored Surekha to be responsible and respectful of individuals' privacy.
"My divorce is a personal matter, and I request that you refrain from speculating about it. Our choice to keep things private doesn’t invite misrepresentation.
"To clarify: my divorce was mutual consent and amicable, with no political conspiracy involved. Could you please keep my name out of political battles? I have always remained non-political and wish to continue doing so," she wrote on Wednesday night.
Talking to reporters here, Congress leader Surekha, the minister for environment, forests and endowments, alleged that KTR was the reason behind Samantha and Chaitanya's divorce.
"KTR (Rama Rao) was the reason behind the divorce of Naga Chaitanya and Samantha...." she alleged.
KTR sent a legal notice to Surekha, demanding an apology from her.
In her post, Samantha asked Surekha to understand the "significant weight" her words carry as a minister.
"To be a woman, To come out and work, To survive in a glamorous industry where women are more often than not treated as props, To fall in love & to fall out of love, To still stand up and fight… It takes a lot of courage and strength. Konda Surekha Garu, I am proud of what this journey turned me into – please don’t trivialise it," she added.
Chaitanya, in his note shared on X, said the divorce was one of the "most painful and unfortunate" of his life's decisions.
"After a lot of thought, a mutual decision was made by me and my former spouse to part ways. It was a decision made in peace, owing to our different life goals and in the interest of moving forward with respect and dignity as two mature adults. However, there have been various baseless and completely ridiculous gossips on the matter so far," he wrote on Wednesday night.
The "Majili" actor said he has remained silent all this while out of deep respect for her former spouse as well as my family. He recently announced engagement to actor Sobhita Dhulipala.
"Today, the claim made by Minister Konda Surekha garu is not only false, it is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. Women deserve to be supported and respected. Taking advantage and exploiting the personal life decisions of celebrities for the sake of media headlines is shameful," he added.
Earlier, Chaitanya's father and top Telugu actor Nagarjuna strongly condemned the minister's remarks asking her "not to use lives of movie stars who stay away from politics to criticise your opponents".
The former couple also received support from fellow Telugu film industry colleagues, including Jr NTR, Chinmayi Sripada, and Nani.
Dragging personal lives into politics is a new low, said Jr NTR.
“It’s disheartening to see baseless statements thrown around carelessly, especially about the film industry. We will not sit quietly while others make baseless allegations against us. Let’s ensure our society does not normalize such reckless behavior in democratic India,” the "Devara: Part 1" star said on X.
Chinmanyi said it's unfortunate to watch how multiple individuals, Telugu YouTube channels and media persons have been using Samantha's name to gain mileage.
"End of the day all it proves is that they need her or her name to get the attention. Not the other way round. She will always be higher than anyone could even dream of touching with a barge pole," the singer wrote on the microblogging site.
Nani, Samantha's co-star on films such as "Eega" and "Yeto Vellipoyindhi Manasu", said it's not okay for anyone in a respectable position to talk "utter baseless rubbish" in front of the media.
"Disgusting to see politicians thinking that they can get away talking any kind of nonsense. When your words can be so irresponsible it's stupid of us to expect that you will have any responsibility for your people. It’s not just about actors or cinema. This is not abt any political party... We all should condemn such practice which will reflect poorly on our society (sic)" he said.
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.
'Fraud on Constitution': SC rules against religious conversion for quota benefits
New Delhi (PTI): In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has said religious conversions undertaken solely to avail reservation benefits without genuine belief amounted to a "fraud on the Constitution".
Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan passed the verdict on November 26 in a case filed by one C Selvarani and upheld a Madras High Court decision of January 24 denying a scheduled caste certificate to a woman who converted to Christianity but later claimed to be a Hindu to secure employment benefits.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, further underscored that one converted to a different religion, when they were genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts.
"However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” he noted.
The evidence presented before the bench was found to have clearly demonstrated that the appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith by attending church regularly.
"Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment," it noted.
"Such a dual claim made by her," said the bench "was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism".
The top court, therefore, held the conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the woman, who was a Christian by faith, but claimed to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, "would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution".
The top court underlined a religious conversion solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermined the fundamental social objectives of the quota policy and her actions were contrary to the spirit of reservation policies aimed at uplifting the marginalised communities.
Selvarani, born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, was baptised as a Christian shortly after birth but later claimed to be a Hindu and sought an SC certificate to apply for an upper division clerk position in Puducherry in 2015.
While her father belonged to the Valluvan caste, categorised under scheduled castes, he had converted to Christianity, as confirmed by documentary evidence.
The verdict said the appellant continued to practice Christianity, as seen by the regular church attendance, making her claim of being a Hindu untenable.
The bench noted individuals converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim SC benefits.
The judgement said there was no substantial evidence of the appellant's reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
Her claims lacked public declarations, ceremonies, or credible documentation to substantiate her assertions, it pointed out.
"One converts to a different religion when genuinely inspired by its principles. Conversion purely for reservation benefits, devoid of belief, is impermissible," the bench held.
The apex court opined in any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one lost their caste and couldn't be identified by it.
"As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through 'Arya Samaj'. No public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” it noted.
The bench said there was evidence against the appellant, and therefore, her contention raised that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, was "unsustainable".
