SM Krishna’s son-in-law named in Panama Papers scam: S.R Hiremath
Hubballi, September 14: Social activist and senior advocate S.R Hiremath alleged that the name of Umesh Mohan Hingorani, the second son-in-law of former chief minister S.M Krishna, was mentioned in the Panama Papers which leaked the details of ill-gotten assets of noted personalities of the country and abroad.
Speaking to reporters here on Friday, Hiremath said that Umesh Mohan has invested illegally in England. He was an employee in UB Company and how did such a person get so much of money to invest in foreign country in the name of SDU Ventures? He has eight companies in his names and all the companies have Bengaluru address. He would write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to conduct a high-level probe from an independent agency, he said.
When Umesh Mohan started his company in the foreign country, S.M Krishna was the Foreign Affairs Minister. So, it was a serious issue and the truth could come out from an impartial investigation. The names of many international leaders including former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif and others were leaked. But he was shocked to see the name of Umesh Mohan in the list, 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.
Karnataka HC quashes FIR against three men accused of 'preaching Islam' near temple premises
Bengaluru, Jul 25 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against three Muslim men who were accused of "preaching Islam" and distributing religious pamphlets near a Hindu temple in Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district.
The complaint had alleged that the men attempted religious conversion by making promises of employment and passed derogatory remarks about Hinduism.
However, the High Court held that there was no substantial evidence of coercion, fraud, or inducement--criteria necessary for prosecution under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.
The court made it clear that mere expression or distribution of religious literature does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by forceful or deceitful attempts to convert.
"The essence of a free society lies in the freedom to express, discuss, and propagate beliefs," the bench observed.
It further stated that peaceful preaching, in the absence of coercion or allurement, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess and propagate one's religion.
Additionally, the bench noted that the complainant in the case was neither the alleged victim nor a relative of one. As per Section 4 of the 2022 Act, only an aggrieved individual or their close relatives are permitted to lodge such complaints--making the FIR procedurally invalid.
