New Delhi: BJP National Secretary of the OBC wing of the party, Dr. Parthasarathi on Wednesday became the subject of trolling and memes on the internet after he edited a picture of PM Modi interacting with former UK PM and pasted former Indian cricketer Ashish Nehra’s picture instead of UK’s latest Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to show Modi interacting with Sunak.
In a tweet, the BJP leader shared four photos including three pictures of Rishi Sunak. The fourth picture however was edited intentionally to show PM Modi in conversation with Rishi Sunak.
The photo was, however, wrongly morphed and a picture of Ashish Nehra was pasted instead of Rishi Sunak.
The actual photo, however, was of PM Modi in conversation with former PM of the UK David Cameron during his visit to London. The photo was clicked at Parliament Square in the UK in November 2015. The picture is available on Alarmy.com and can be accessed by clicking here.
“This Diwali is really very special. Not only in Ayodhya the history of Deepotsav is being written but in Britain also A new history is being created by #RishiSunak of Indian origin. @RishiSunak will be the new Prime Minister of Britain. Best wishes and congratulations .” (sic) Dr. Parthasarathi wrote in his tweet.
The tweet was, however, deleted later but several users on the internet had saved it by then. AltNews co-founder and journalist Mohammed Zubair shared one of the screenshots of the tweet.
Kids : Let me Photoshop Rishi Sunak's pic with Modi ji
— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) October 25, 2022
Legends : Uski kya zarurat hai, Nehra ki chipka deta hun, Inko kya hi pata chalega. pic.twitter.com/1v1O36t0r2
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.
New Delhi, Feb 20 (PTI): The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR against AAP MP Swati Maliwal for allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim who succumbed to injuries.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said Maliwal's claim that she was protected from prosecution as her actions were in good faith would have to be proved at an appropriate stage and there was no ground for closing the proceedings in the present plea.
Delhi Police registered the FIR against Maliwal in 2016 when she was the chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women, and said there was a blatant violation of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence.
"Prima facie, offence under Section 74 read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is clearly disclosed. Insofar as the petitioner's claim that she has protection under Section 100 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for her actions done in good faith is concerned, it is her defence which is required to be proved in accordance with law at the appropriate stage," the court said on February 13.
The judge added, "Therefore, there is no ground for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings..."
Maliwal sought a court-monitored probe in the matter, saying despite the minor's death, the police did not invoke the murder charge in the FIR.
The court said the prayer was infructuous as a chargesheet was filed in the two cases in relation to the incident and the cases were pending trial.
It is now for the trial court to consider them and no fruitful purpose would be served by referring further investigation to an SIT, the court said.
The minor girl succumbed to her injuries on July 23, 2016 in a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat and damaged her internal organs.
The police said Maliwal circulated a notice she had sent to the area deputy commissioner of police, in which she sought to know about the investigation in the rape case.
The notice, which was given to the print and electronic media, reportedly named victim.
The FIR alleged that the notice was "intentionally circulated" on various WhatsApp groups and shown by TV channels.
On account of the presence of the consent of the victim's parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) of the IPC was dropped and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added in the case.