Veteran television producer-director B.P. Singh, best known for creating the popular crime investigation series CID, has died after suffering a heart attack. His death on Tuesday, October 27, prompted tributes from colleagues and members of the entertainment industry, who remembered his contribution to Indian television.

Filmmaker Ashoke Pandit shared the news of Singh’s death in a social media post, remembering him as an accomplished filmmaker whose work had captivated audiences through shows such as CID and Aahat.

Pandit also recalled his association with Singh during the latter’s tenure as president of the Indian Film and Television Directors’ Association. Expressing grief over the loss, he described Singh as a close friend and a person whose work would continue to inspire future generations.

The last rites are scheduled to take place on Wednesday, October 28, according to Pandit’s post.

BP Singh’s contribution to Indian television

Born Brijendra Pal Singh, B.P. Singh established himself as a prominent figure in Indian television through his work as a producer and director. He created CID, one of the country’s longest-running crime investigation shows, which premiered in 1998 and followed a team of Mumbai crime branch officers investigating cases.

The series became widely recognised among television audiences and ran for around two decades. Singh also occasionally appeared on the show as DCP Shamsher Singh Chitrole.

One of the show’s notable milestones came in October 2004, when a special episode was filmed in a single continuous take lasting 111 minutes. The achievement received recognition in the Limca Book of Records and the Guinness World Records.

Singh’s work was not limited to crime dramas. He was also associated with Aahat, a popular horror television series that aired from 1995 to 2015. His other projects included Khaaki, Abhay and SuperCops Vs Super Villains.

Ashoke Pandit remembers the veteran filmmaker

In his tribute, Pandit recalled Singh’s professional achievements and their personal association. He praised the filmmaker’s work on CID and Aahat and expressed condolences to his family and loved ones.

Singh’s death marks the loss of a veteran television professional whose productions helped shape crime and horror programming in India.

His work on CID and Aahat remains a significant part of his legacy in Indian television.

India has invited Pakistan’s Minister for National Heritage and Culture, Aurangzeb Khan Khichi, to attend the inaugural Civilisational Dialogue Forum of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in New Delhi in November.

The invitation comes ahead of the two-day SCO Council of Ministers of Culture meeting scheduled for November 20 and 21. The wider Civilisational Dialogue Forum is expected to take place from November 20 to 22, bringing together representatives of SCO member countries and other invited participants.

However, Pakistan has not yet confirmed whether it will send a delegation to the event. Its government is reviewing the invitation and is expected to decide on participation following internal consultations, according to reports citing diplomatic sources.

What is the SCO Civilisational Dialogue Forum?

The Civilisational Dialogue Forum is an initiative aimed at promoting awareness of the shared civilisational heritage of SCO member countries and encouraging cultural exchanges among them.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposed the forum at the SCO leaders’ summit in Tianjin, China, in 2025. The proposal was subsequently adopted by the organisation’s council.

India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh announced on October 20 that the country would host the first forum, inviting all SCO member states to participate.

The event is being organised by India’s Ministry of Culture and Ministry of External Affairs. According to reports, it is planned at Purana Qila, the historic fort in New Delhi.

The proposed discussions will cover religious and philosophical traditions, art and architecture, language and literature, manuscript traditions, and cultural expressions and living traditions across participating countries.

India-Pakistan engagement through the SCO

India and Pakistan are both members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which provides a platform for regional cooperation despite differences between the two countries.

The invitation follows previous high-level engagements between the neighbours under the SCO framework. Pakistan’s then Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari travelled to Goa in May 2023 to attend an SCO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting hosted by India.

In October 2024, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited Islamabad for the SCO Council of Heads of Government meeting. India also sent its SCO National Coordinator, Alok Dimri, to Islamabad for a meeting in September 2026.

If Khichi attends the November forum, it would mark another ministerial-level visit from Pakistan to India under the SCO framework since the 2023 meeting in Goa. However, his participation has not yet been confirmed.

What happens next?

The immediate development to watch is Islamabad’s decision on whether to send its culture minister or another delegation to New Delhi.

The invitation is part of India’s engagement with the SCO’s multilateral framework. It should not, by itself, be interpreted as confirmation of a separate bilateral diplomatic breakthrough between India and Pakistan.

For now, the forum is scheduled for November, while Pakistan’s final participation remains undecided.

The dispute over the leadership of Tata Sons has intensified after Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata challenged the validity of N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as executive chairman and raised questions about reported commercial dealings between TVS Motor and a company linked to Chandrasekaran’s family.

In a letter dated October 26 to Tata Sons company secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay and the board, Noel sought records and disclosures relating to the September 17 board meeting at which Chandrasekaran’s reappointment for another five-year term was approved.

Noel has argued that the resolution was not properly included in the meeting agenda, that the prescribed selection procedure was not followed and that the required voting conditions were not met. He has maintained that the resolution is void and sought extensive documentation to support a review of the decision.

Why Noel Tata has challenged Chandrasekaran’s reappointment

One of Noel’s principal objections concerns the agenda and procedure followed at the September 17 board meeting.

According to his letter, neither the original nor the revised agenda specifically listed a resolution on Chandrasekaran’s reappointment. The relevant agenda item was described as a debriefing from the nomination and remuneration committee (NRC), but the reappointment resolution was subsequently moved under that item.

Noel has also questioned why a selection committee was not constituted under Article 118 of Tata Sons’ Articles of Association, despite a request for its formation dating back to August 13.

He has further argued that the affirmative vote required from directors appointed under Article 104B, read alongside Article 121, was not obtained and that conditions attached to the resolution remain unfulfilled.

Another objection relates to the certification and filing of the resolution before the board minutes had been finalised. Noel has sought the final signed minutes, voting records, different versions of the meeting agenda and the original audio-video recording and transcript.

He has also asked the company to inform the Registrar of Companies that the resolution’s validity is disputed.

Noel Tata raises questions over TVS Motor dealings

The second major issue concerns reported commercial arrangements between TVS Motor and Hanno One Warehousing, a company whose directors include Chandrasekaran’s wife, Lalitha, and son, Pranav.

Noel’s letter refers to reported dealings involving the two companies and questions whether these relationships were disclosed to Tata Sons before Chandrasekaran’s reappointment was considered.

According to the reports cited in the letter, TVS Motor leased approximately 17.41 acres of land near its Hosur plant to Hanno One in June 2025 for 29 years, with a renewal option available to Hanno One.

Hanno One is reportedly constructing a facility of approximately 3.3 lakh square feet for TVS Motor. The reported project cost is around Rs 106 crore, with a deposit of Rs 27 crore. A construction loan of approximately Rs 60 crore from HDFC Bank was also reported.

A separate arrangement involves land near TVS Motor’s Mysuru factory for an industrial park estimated to cost Rs 330 crore, intended to serve TVS Motor and its suppliers.

Noel has questioned whether these commercial relationships were disclosed to the Tata Sons board and the Tata Trusts before the reappointment decision.

He has stated that he does not recall the relevant disclosures being presented to the board. His letter also points out that the interest disclosure recorded from Venu Srinivasan at the September 17 meeting concerned his having ceased to be a director of TVS Group companies on June 10, 2026.

Why Venu Srinivasan’s role is under scrutiny

Noel has also questioned the participation of Venu Srinivasan, chairman emeritus of TVS Motor and a member of Tata Sons’ nomination and remuneration committee.

Srinivasan participated in the committee’s deliberations on September 3 and cast the vote associated with the Article 104B director requirement during the September 17 board process.

Noel has argued that Srinivasan should have disclosed the reported commercial relationship between TVS Motor and Chandrasekaran’s family before participating in the assessment and voting process.

In his letter, Noel contends that Srinivasan should have declared the dealings and recused himself from both the NRC deliberations and the subsequent board meeting.

He has questioned whether Srinivasan’s participation affects the validity of the committee’s recommendation and the board resolution.

These are objections raised by Noel and do not, by themselves, establish that a conflict of interest occurred or that the resolution is legally invalid.

Tata Code of Conduct and disclosures sought

Noel’s letter also refers to the Tata Code of Conduct, which sets out expectations regarding actual or potential conflicts of interest and the disclosure of relevant interests held by immediate family members.

He has sought declarations of interest from Chandrasekaran and Srinivasan, relevant Form MBP-1 filings, annual compliance affirmations and communications concerning Hanno One and TVS Motor.

The letter also requests records of any disclosure made in April 2025 concerning Hanno One’s incorporation, along with evidence of whether the board or any committee considered that disclosure.

Noel has questioned whether the reported commercial arrangements were brought to the attention of the legal advisers whose opinions were obtained in support of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment.

He has sought the instructions and documents provided to those advisers, the authority under which the opinions were commissioned and clarification on whether the Hanno One dealings were disclosed to them.

Additionally, he has requested the agenda, papers, minutes, attendance records and recordings of the September 3 NRC meeting.

Noel has asked Tata Sons to provide the requested records and disclosures within seven days and to preserve relevant documents, recordings and communications without alteration or destruction.

What Tata Sons has said

Tata Sons has maintained that the reported TVS Motor transaction did not require disclosure to the company. A spokesperson’s statement cited in Noel’s letter said Hanno One’s incorporation had been disclosed in April 2025 to companies chaired by Chandrasekaran.

The company has also previously defended the validity of Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, relying on legal opinions supporting the board’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of its Articles of Association.

The disagreement centres on whether the board followed the correct procedure, whether the necessary voting requirements were satisfied and whether relevant interests were adequately disclosed.

Noel’s latest letter seeks further records and clarification on these issues, keeping the dispute over Chandrasekaran’s reappointment and Tata Sons’ corporate governance in focus.