Rape cases going up as some dresses worn by women 'excite' men: BJP MLA M P Renukacharya
Bengaluru, Feb 9: Amid the ongoing Hijab row, Karnataka BJP MLA M P Renukacharya on Wednesday claimed that rape cases are increasing as some dresses worn by women 'excite' men, as he tried to make his case for girl students in colleges to either wear uniform or dress that fully cover their body.
Later realising that his remarks would stir controversy, the political secretary to the Chief Minister said that he would apologise to women, if his statement has hurt them.
The Honnali MLA was reacting to Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's tweet regarding the hijab row.
"Whether it is a bikini, a ghoonghat, a pair of jeans or a hijab, it is a woman's right to decide what she wants to wear. This right is GUARANTEED by the Indian constitution. Stop harassing women," she had tweeted.
"Priyanka Gandhi is a woman, a Congress leader.....we are not questioning the fundamental rights of women (on the hijab issue).
Kerala and Bombay High Courts have said that uniform is mandatory at schools and colleges, the government has also said the same. Using bikini word for girl student's (dress) is ignoble," Renukacharya said.
Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, he said, "While studying in colleges, students should wear uniforms or a dress that fully covers their body. Rape cases are increasing as some dresses worn by women excite men, which is not good, because women have respect in our country, we regard them as mothers."
The former Minister also demanded that Priyanka Gandhi withdraw her statement and apologise to girl students and women.
Further stating that Priyanka Gandhi probably does not understand the culture and traditions of this country, Renukacharya said, "her mother's is Italian culture, her marriage too.... It's her personal matter, (she) saying such things will lead to a lot of meanings, which is not right."
He also said that BJP is not politicising the uniform dress code issue.
Later trying to clarify his statement, the legislator said, "if my statement has hurt our sisters, I will definitely apologise. I respect them."
ALSO READ---It is woman's right to decide what she wants to wear, stop harassing: Priyanka Gandhi
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 to hear plea challenging blocking of YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea seeking quashing of an order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13.
The apex court on May 5 sought responses from the Centre and others on the plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of digital news platform '4PM', which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh.
The plea claimed that the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing "vague" grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the top court's cause list for May 13, the plea is slated to come up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The plea claimed that the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The plea also contended that it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard.
"'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said.
The action was not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press, the plea said.
"The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre to produce the order with "reasons" and "records", if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel.
It also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Rule 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding all requests, complaints and actions taken under the rule.
The plea also sought striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order.
It said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
