Lawyer seeks ban on Sudeep’s movies, TV shows, advertisements after his announcement to support BJP
Bengaluru: A Shivamogga-based lawyer seeks Election Commission to ban Kichcha Sudeep’s movies, TV Shows and advertisements from being telecasted till Karnataka assembly Elections are over after he announced his support for Cheif Minister Basavaraj Bommai.
Waleela K.P Sripal advocate from Shivamogga, wrote the letter to Election Commission, demanding EC to take urgent action in this regard.
In the letter, advocate Sripal said that Kichcha Sudeep himself announced that he would campaign for Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Eommission should ensure that no movies, tv shows and advertisements of him should be screened or telecasted till the elections are over as they could influence voters, leading to a clear violation of the Election Code of Conduct.
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.
Marriage does not grant husbands control over wives' autonomy, privacy: Allahabad High Court
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has firmly stated that it is time for husbands to discard outdated Victorian-era mentalities and acknowledge that a wife’s body, privacy, and rights belong solely to her and are not subject to her husband’s control or ownership.
A single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar made these observations while dismissing a plea filed by a man accused of secretly recording intimate videos of his wife without her consent, uploading them on Facebook, and sharing the footage with her cousin.
The petitioner sought to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings under s. 67B of the Information Technology Act, arguing that no offence could be made out as the complainant was his legally wedded wife. He also contended that the FIR was anti-timed, the victim's statement under s. 161 CrPC showed substantial improvements, and no material evidence linked him to the alleged acts.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate argued that serious allegations were made against the husband. The complainant's legal relationship with the accused did not give him the right to make or circulate an obscene video.
Rejecting the husband’s arguments, the Court observed that such claims could be raised during trial but cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings under s. 482 CrPC. Addressing the core issue, the Court remarked:
“Marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her autonomy or right to privacy. By uploading an intimate video on Facebook, the applicant has gravely breached the sanctity of the marital relationship.”
Referring to historical principles like the Victorian doctrine of coverture, the Court stated that it is high time for husbands to move past regressive mindsets that undermine women’s autonomy. It emphasised the constitutional right to privacy, citing landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade (US) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (India), which recognise bodily autonomy and personal liberty as fundamental rights.
The Court further underscored that a wife is an individual with her own rights and agency, not an extension of her husband. Respecting her bodily autonomy and privacy is not only a legal duty but also a moral obligation essential for fostering an equal relationship.
Dismissing the plea, the Court highlighted that any attempts to control or violate a wife’s rights through coercion, abuse, or the non-consensual sharing of intimate details constitute severe breaches of trust and legality.
