SC

Krrish 3: SC asks novelist to make claim to Rakesh Roshan to settle case

Mar 182018

Novelist Rupnarayan Sonkar had filed a police complaint in 2016 accusing Rakesh Roshan of copyright violation and claimed that some scenes of the movie were based on his novel Suardaan

Rakesh Roshan

The Supreme Court has directed a Dehradun-based novelist to give a reasonable offer to film director Rakesh Roshan for settling a case related to alleged copyright violation in the 2013 Bollywood blockbuster Krrish 3.

Novelist Rupnarayan Sonkar had filed a police complaint in 2016 accusing Roshan of copyright violation and claimed that some scenes of the movie were based on his novel Suardaan.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked Roshan as to why he does not pay the amount and finish the case against him in which charge sheet has been filed.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who is appearing for Roshan, said that he has not got any offer for settlement from the novelist side.

“First let the offer be made from the other side. If it is reasonable we would certainly look into it,” Jethmalani said.

The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, listed the matter for April 9 to enable the novelist to furnish a proposal to Roshan’a counsel.

“We expect that the respondent No 3 (Sonkar) shall put forth his claim which would be reasonable so that the petitioner (Roshan) can be asked to accept the same,” the bench said.

It, however, clarified that the present order has been passed without prejudice to the points raised in the petition.

Roshan had moved the apex court against an Uttarakhand High Court order of July 20 last year which dismissed his plea seeking stay on his arrest in a case of alleged copyright violation.

The high court rejected his plea on the ground that a charge sheet had already been filed against him in the case.

Sonkar had claimed that his novel was published in 2010 and hence, the case was filed against Roshan.

In the charge sheet, Roshan has been accused of plagiarising portions of a story written by Sonkar and using it in Krrish 3.

An FIR was registered at the Dalanwala police station of Uttarakhand in 2016 on the complaint of Sonkar, who had accused Roshan of copyright violation.

Catch up on all the latest entertainment news and gossip here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Actor Priya moves SC seeking quashing of FIR against her

Celebrities

Feb 192018

priya case

Actress Priya Prakash Varrier, who stole the heart of the nation with her cute antics in a song of an upcoming Malyalam movie, on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIRs against her and the director of the film for hurting religious sentiments of Muslims.

The actress, film director Omar Lulu and others sought an ex-parte stay on the FIR and police complaints, and also appropriate orders restraining other states from registering such FIRs.

Some Muslim activists had lodged an FIR against the team of “Oru Adaar Love” in Hyderabad under Section 295A (hurting religious sentiments) of the Indian Penal Code on February 14.

A group in Maharashtra’s Aurangabad also filed a police complaint against Varrier and Lulu on the same grounds.

On Monday, Varrier’s counsel Pallavi Pratap told the apex court that the criminal complaints instituted by “various fringe groups” are based on a “distorted and incorrect interpretation of the song”.

“The claims that it hurts the religious sentiments of the Muslim community are without any basis,” it said.

Stressing that an amount of Rs 1.5 crore has been spent on the movie, the plea said “such flimsy and baseless complaints and FIRs cause nothing but hindrance in freedom of speech”.

The contentious scene where Varrier winks at a boy features the Mappila lyrics — a traditional Muslim song from the Malabar region of Kerala — that celebrate the love between Prophet Mohammed and his first wife Khadija.

The complainants have primarily objected to the use of Mappila as background music in the flirting scene.

However, the petition said it was “hard to fathom” that a song which has been in existence “for the past 40 years… was cherished by the Muslim community in Kerala is now being treated as an insult… it cannot suddenly offend the religious sentiment of the Muslim community”.

The plea said that the fringe elements have “misunderstood” the lyrics of the song.

“Filing of criminal complaints and registration of FIRs by the police in multiple states on the basis of complaints by fringe elements… has adversely affected the petitioners’ right to life, liberty and freedom of expression.

“…the legality of the content of the film and the certification on the same can only be dealt with under law by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC),” it said.

Citing the apex court’s order on November 16, 2017 that a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art, the plea said these complaints were contrary to the order.

The Supreme Court has observed earlier that an artist has freedom to express himself and a thought-provoking film “should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical”.

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and also a complete guide on Mumbai from food to things to do and events across the city here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

SC clears Padmaavat for release: Bollywood heaves sigh of relief

Celebrities

Jan 182018

As first reported in mid-day, Padmaavat makers cite Prakash Jha’s Aarakshan as precedent to overturn state governments’ ban

Deepika Padukone and Shahid Kapoor in a still from Padmaavat

It was a victory of freedom of expression as the Supreme Court yesterday cleared Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat for release, by staying the ban imposed by the governments of several states including Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, the bench said it is the duty of states to maintain law and order and that the creative content is an inseparable aspect of Article 19 (1), freedom of speech and expression.

Hansal Mehta

As told to mid-day (January 18 edition), the producers’ counsel cited the example of Prakash Jha’s caste-reservation drama Aarakshan (2011), which was banned in certain states until the SC overturned the decision. Using that as precedent, the legal team argued that once the Censor Board has certified a movie, no state can ban it. It also argued that the makers had complied with the changes recommended by the Censor Board.

For an industry that largely shied away from commenting on the Padmaavat issue through Bhansali’s months-long battle, it welcomed the SC decision with open arms. Shabana Azmi, one of the few actors to initiate a petition asking PM Narendra Modi to offer protection to Deepika Padukone, said, “I welcome the decision. But there remains the unresolved matter of no action being taken against those who placed a bounty on Deepika’s head. Immediate action needs to be taken against these criminal elements so as to send out a clear signal to the country that the dignity of women is supreme and neither abusive language nor violent threats will go unpunished.”

Shabana Azmi

Director Hansal Mehta reiterated how the banning of a film that has been cleared by the CBFC in the first place, is unconstitutional. “It’s a good sign that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision. The entire team of Padmaavat can heave a sigh of relief.”

Raza Murad, who plays Jalaluddin Khilji in the magnum opus, described it as a “victory of democracy.” “I think true change can be brought about when the government deals with people who create nuisance with an iron hand.”

With inputs from Bharati Dubey

Catch up on all the latest entertainment news and gossip here.

Download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get updates on all the latest and trending stories on the go

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Padmaavat cleared for release as SC stays ban on film

Celebrities

Jan 182018

Sanjay Leela Bhansali breathes free as the Supreme Court clears release of the historical drama using the film Aarakshan as precedent; Bollywood veterans critique two-faced government

Deepika Padukone in Padmaavat

The Supreme Court this morning cleared Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s controversial period drama, Padmaavat, by suspending the ban orders of six states – Haryana, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand. A bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud considered the submission of the counsel of Viacom 18 and other producers of the film that the plea be heard urgently as the movie was set for all-India release on January 25.

The court said it is the duty of states to maintain law and order and that the creative content is an inseparable aspect of article 19 (1), freedom of speech and expression. CJI Dipak Misra said in his comments that the states can take a call in case violence erupts after release, but cannot preempt reaction or ban a film before release. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Agarwal Law Associates on behalf of Viacom 18 and Bhansali Productions, seeking the quashing of a ban on the release of the film.

Sanjay Leela Bhansali

The producers moved the top court through senior lawyer Harish Salve and advocate Mahesh Agarwal and submitted, in the petition, that the movie has undergone changes including in its title and the Ghoomar song as suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). They cited the example of Prakash Jha’s controversial 2011 film, Aarakshan, which looked at caste reservation in education.

It was considered anti-Dalit and banned across several states, before the SC cleared its release. Using that as a precedent, the legal team argued that once the Censor Board has certified a movie, no state can ban it. Salve said, “If states are banning a film, then it [ban] is destroying [the] federal structure. It is a serious matter. If somebody has a problem, then he or she can approach the appellate tribunal for relief. [The] state can’t touch the content of a film.”

A source close to the production house told mid-day, “The Supreme Court has passed an order upholding the freedom of speech and directing the states to maintain law and order relying on Prakash Jha’s case of Aarakshan. This is another landmark case, where the Apex court has upheld freedom of speech and expression again, recognising that the state is duty bound to maintain law and order when the CBFC has certified a film. The principle laid down in the case of Aarakshan has been upheld.”

Jan 25
Day the film will finally release

– With inputs from Bharati Dubey, Sonil Dedhia and Mohar Basu

Catch up on all the latest entertainment news and gossip here.

Download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get updates on all the latest and trending stories on the go

Trending Video

The content/reporting displayed on our website www.mid-day.com is provided “AS-IS,” “AS AVAILABLE, by us from third party, agencies, sources, without any verification from our side. It may contain error, bugs and other limitations. The reader’s can rely on the content at their own will. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, data, text, images, video, messages, or any other material whatsoever or for any claims/loss/action that the reader may suffer as a result of relying on the content on our site. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Security for VVIPs to help take “bold” decisions: DP tells SC

News

Jan 172013

New Delhi: If Delhi Police is to be believed, security is provided for VVIPs not because of their status or any specific threat but to “facilitate” bold and impartial decision making by them.

This submission made by the city police in an affidavit to the Supreme Court on Thursday rankled the bench that was hearing a petition on misuse of red beacons on vehicles prompting it to say the document has to be “contemptuously ignored”.

The court also pulled up Delhi Police’s Deputy Commissioner(head quarter) for filing the affidavit.

The police in its affidavit filed before the apex court said that security to Union Ministers, Lieutenant Governor, Chief Minister, Cabinet Minister of state and judges of the supreme court and high court are given not on account of their status or specific threat.

“It is further submitted that certain category of individuals, mainly from the higher echelons of the government, needed to be provided basic minimum security arrangements ie. Positional/statutory security cover not on account of their status or specific threat but to facilitate bold and impartial decision making,” the eight-page affidavit said.

A bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi who was hearing the case took strong exception to the affidavit and said that it has to be “contemptuously ignored”.

“How can our judgement become bold due to security. Is this the level of understanding of the officer? He must be an IPS officer and must have read IPC and CrPC,” the bench said.

PTI

For Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest

First Published: Friday, January 18, 2013, 00:48

SC acquits Pak microbiologist Khalil Chisti of murder charge, allows him to return home

News

Dec 122012

Pakistani microbiologist Mohammed Khalil Chishti, who faced the prospect of life-long imprisonment in India in view of his conviction in a 1992 murder case, is now free to leave the country with the murder charge being overturned by the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday held Chisti guilty of having merely caused hurt and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period he had already undergone.

The order comes as a major relief for the 80-year-old microbiologist, who is presently on bail in India, as the minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court had both held him guilty of murder and had sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Justice Sathasivam had earlier in May allowed Chisti to make a trip to Pakistan while his appeal was pending consideration before the court. The court had asked him to deposit Rs 5 lakh as security and return by November 1. Chisti had returned on October 29, a couple of days before the deadline.

Chisti, who was on a visit to India, had been taken into custody on April 14, 1992, after a fight in Khadim Mohalla in Ajmer led to the death of a person and injury to another.

2G: SC dismisses Swamy’s review petition against Chidambaram

News

Dec 112012

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s petition for review of its verdict clearing Finance Minister P Chidambaram of all charges in the 2G spectrum allocation scam .

The apex court said the decision does not “warrant any reconsideration.”

“We have perused the averments contained in the review petition and have gone through the record of Special Leave Petition and are satisfied that order dated August 24, 2012 does not suffer from any error apparent which may be warranted its reconsideration.

“The review petition is accordingly dismissed,” a bench of justices G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan said.

Swamy had sought review of the August 24 decision by which his plea for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry against Chidambaram was rejected by the same bench, which had said there was no material to establish that he abused his official position as the then finance minister.

It had also said neither had Chidambaram conspired nor had he colluded with former Telecom Minister A Raja to obtain any pecuniary advantage for himself or any other persons.

Aggrieved by the order, Swamy had filed the review petition, which was dismissed by the same bench on December 4.