Startup faces online backlash after revoking ₹22 LPA offer to candidate over hate speech
Mumbai: Jobbie, a Mumbai-based startup has faced online backlash and trolling after it revoked a high-paying job offer over the candidate’s alleged hate speech on LinkedIn. The platform, which had hoped to spark a conversation around responsibility and decency in online spaces, is now grappling with mass reporting, fake reviews, and targeted harassment.
Mohammed Ahmed Bhati, founder of Jobbie, announced in an Linked in post last week that his team rejected an offer worth ₹22 lakh per annum after discovering public remarks by the candidate that were “derogatory towards religious communities.” The post, which Bhati says was intended to highlight how online hate can carry real-world consequences, went viral and was widely covered by media.
But what followed, Bhati claims, was an aggressive backlash. In a recent Reddit post allegedly written by Bhati, he revealed that his verified LinkedIn profile was mass reported and subsequently taken down. Jobbie’s website was allegedly offline for nearly 15 hours, its Google rating plummeted from 4.8 to 3.4 due to coordinated fake reviews, and some employees were harassed over the founder’s religious identity.
Bhati stressed that his post did not mention any community or individual by name. “People simply judged that I am Muslim, assumed the other person must be Hindu, and concluded I took away someone’s offer based on religion,” he wrote. He also noted that some news outlets framed the story through a religious lens, despite his post’s stated goal of promoting digital civility.
The startup’s rejection email had stated that the candidate’s recent LinkedIn activity included remarks that could deeply hurt the sentiments of certain communities. Bhati maintains that the company's decision was rooted in principle: “No matter how skilled someone is, respect and basic decency matter to us more. Talent gets you in the door. Values decide if you stay.”
What began as an attempt to set a standard for respectful conduct in the workplace has now turned into a test of resilience for the startup itself. As of now, Bhati’s LinkedIn account remains restricted, even after re-verification. “The irony is that the very account trying to bring communal harmony was taken down for communal violations,” he wrote.
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.
Cash discovery row: SC grills Justice Yashwant Varma over his petition
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Justice Yashwant Varma over his plea to invalidate an in-house inquiry panel report indicting him over the discovery of huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.
"Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Justice Varma.
The top court further quizzed Justice Varma over the parties he had made in his plea and said he should have filed the in-house inquiry report with his plea.
Sibal submitted there was a process under Article 124 (the Establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court), and a judge couldn't be a subject matter of public debate.
"The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme," Sibal added.
The top court asked Sibal to come with one page bullet points and correct the memo of parties.
The matter was posted for July 30.
Justice Varma has sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then chief justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
His plea said the inquiry "reversed the burden of proof", requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.
Alleging that the panel's findings were based on a preconceived narrative, Justice Varma said the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of "procedural fairness".
The petition contended that the inquiry panel drew adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing.
A report of the inquiry panel probing the incident had said Justice Varma and his family members had covert or active control over the store room where a huge cache of half-burnt cash was found following a fire incident, proving his misconduct which is serious enough to seek his removal.
The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.
Acting on the report, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending the judge's impeachment.
