English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Padmavati to hit theatres on Dec 1, SC refuses to stay release

Published

on

Padmavati to hit theatres on Dec 1, SC refuses to stay release

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Petition challenging films release had said ‘Padmavati’ distorts historical facts, Deepika Padukone’s ‘thumkas’ in the Ghoomar song hurt sentiments of Rajputs

The Supreme Courton Thursday, refused to stay the release of Deepika Padukone starrer ‘Padmavati’ over which the Allahabad High Court also declined to entertain a plea seeking a ban of the big-budget film produced and directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

The period drama, which also stars Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor, in lead roles is due to be released on December 1.

An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to entertain a plea seeking a stay of the release of the film after it enquired at the outset as to whether or not the Censor Board had issued a certification for the movie.

“Has the film been placed before the Censor Board? Has the Censor Board certified the film,” the Bench, which also comprised Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, asked from the counsel for the petitioners.

On being intimated that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was yet to certify the movie, the Bench said, “this court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction in such situation.” The Bench observed that since the CBFC has not yet certified the film, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as a writ petition under Article 32.

The top court said that there were several guidelines for the CBFC in granting certification to a movie and moreover, there is the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) which is mandated to look into grievances regarding a film.

The Bench was hearing a plea filed by Siddharajsinh Mahavirsinh Chudasama and 11 others against the film which was filed through counsel Somesh Chandra Jha

Besides seeking a stay on the release of the movie, the plea had also sought setting up of a committee of eminent historians to check the veracity of the script to prevent any inaccuracy in portrayal of Rani Padmavati.

It was also contended that the film be not allowed to be released till such time any historical inaccuracies in the movie are corrected by the producer and the director. Jha argued in the petition that the film’s producers had “not cared about out rich cultural history” and had “indulged in character assassination of Sati Rani Padmavati… she has been shown as a degenerate woman and an admirer of a lecherous foreign invader”.

The plea noted that the movie distorted the events during the 13th century historical battle between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi and the siege of Chittor.

The petitioners also made some rather outlandish claims, stating that the ‘Ghoomar’ song in the film featuring Deepika Padukone – teasers of which have gone viral ever since its release, making the song a chartbuster – had “hurt sentiments of the Rajput community” because of the “thumkas (hip movement) and the revelation of skin by Ms Padukone in her portrayal of Padmavati.”

Counsel Jha also argued that Padmavati enjoyed the stature of a goddess in the Rajput community and that her portrayal in the movie “could lead to law and order problems as no Indian would tolerate incorrect portrayal” of the legendary queen.

The apex court’s decision to refuse the stay on the movie’s release came on a day when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy sought to trigger yet another controversy over the Deepika Padukone-starrer.

Living up to his reputation of making absolutely bizarre and outlandish allegations, Swamy claimed that the movie was part of an “international conspiracy” planned by Dubai-based people to show “Muslim kings in India as heroes and defame Hindu women”. The Rajya Sabha MP also demanded an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate into the financial dealings of Sanjay Leela Bhansali to find out the source of his income through which he was funding the production of films like Padmavati.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]Meanwhile, in Lucknow, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court asked a petitioner, seeking a ban on the movie “Padmavati” on the ground that it allegedly propagates the practice of ‘Sati’, to approach the Censor Board with his plea. Sati is a practice whereby a widow threw herself on to her husband’s funeral pyre.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com