Are you a historian? High Court blasts Kamal Haasan for Kannada remark
The judge criticised the actor's stance and remark questioning his responsibility as a public figure. 'No language can be born out of another. Where is the material to support this (claim)? And what has happened? Disharmony. And what have the people of Karnataka asked? (Only) an apology.'Justice Nagaprasanna also questioned Haasan's claim. 'The circumstances were created by Kamal Haasan, and he has said he will not apologise? You have undermined the sentiment of the people of Karnataka ... On what basis? Are you a historian? Or a linguist?'Appearing for the petitioner and representing the film's producer, senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa submitted that the actor's statement could be viewed by the court just once, and added that it was not intended to offend or that it was not so drastically wrong.advertisementTo this, Justice Nagaprasanna responded strongly: '(If you won't apologise) Why do you want the film to run in Karnataka? Leave it. Freedom of expression cannot be stretched to hurting sentiments of a mass. You apologise, then no problem. You want to earn some crores from Karnataka also.'The court also questioned the actor's decision to seek protection from the police despite having caused the unrest. 'Now you are here for a commercial interest, that police should protect for a situation created by you! One apology would have solved everything. In law, we will consider. But look at the attitude!'The court also observed that Haasan could have issued a clarification, saying, 'I have made a statement without looking into the history.' Recalling a similar incident, the judge said, 'Rajagopal Acharya had apologised for a similar statement decades ago. Language is a sentiment attached to people. You have said something to undermine that.'The High Court made these observations while hearing the petition, but is yet to issue a ruling on the petition, although has asked Haasan to consider apologising. The hearing was adjourned to 2.30 pm.Reacting to the court's observations, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister said, 'Hope Kamal listens to the court. But we also shouldn't be too adamant.'
IN THIS STORY#Karnataka#Tamil Nadu
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: 'No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, 'If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Andhra's ex-intel chief, who faced YSRCP heat over Pegasus and corruption allegations, gets TDP all-clear
The Andhra Pradesh government has dropped all further action against retired IPS officer and former intelligence chief A B Venkateswara Rao after the High Court quashed an FIR and a chargesheet filed against him. Rao, an Additional Director General of Police officer, had been booked under charges including criminal conspiracy and cheating and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act during the tenure of the previous YSRCP government. He was also in the limelight when allegations emerged that the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) government between 2014 and 2019 had used the Pegasus spying software. Rao has maintained that he was being targeted by the YSRCP as he was deemed close to TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu. A few days before the Assembly elections were held on April 11, 2019, the Election Commission of India had transferred Rao and asked him to report to its headquarters. The YSR Congress Party leaders had complained to the EC that some police officers were working in favour of the TDP government. Rao had challenged his suspension in the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which quashed his suspension and directed the YSRCP government to reinstate him. He was reinstated on May 31, 2024, and he retired the same day. The YSRCP government had also filed a chargesheet against him in a local court in Vijayawada on May 18, 2024, in an alleged corruption case. However, both the FIR and the chargesheet were quashed by the High Court, said a government order issued on Tuesday. Chief secretary K Vijayanand, in the order, said the TDP-led NDA government has reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion that it was not a fit case to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. 'The government has therefore decided to drop further action against Rao,' said Vijayanand in the order. During Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy's tenure, his government had also alleged that Rao was involved in irregularities in the purchase of surveillance equipment from an Israeli firm and in the award of a contract to a firm owned by his son. In March 2022, the Andhra Pradesh Assembly passed a resolution to probe whether the previous TDP regime had purchased Israeli spyware, Pegasus. The resolution came as the ruling YSRCP told the House that it had taken note of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's comments that while her government had rejected an offer to buy Pegasus 4-5 years ago, the software had been acquired by Andhra Pradesh when Chandrababu Naidu was the CM. Just after this resolution was passed, Rao held a media conference in which he said that although NSO Group had approached the state government to sell Pegasus, it was rejected. He said that as he was the Intelligence chief at that time, it was his responsibility to respond to allegations and clear the air. Taking note of his media conference, the state government issued a show cause notice to Rao on April 5, stating that he violated Rule 6 of AIS Rules as he did not take permission from the state government to address a media conference. In April 2022, the Supreme Court directed the state government to reinstate Rao and give him a posting. The state government appointed him commissioner of printing and stationery, but suspended him the same day for the same reasons. This January, the TDP-led NDA government regularised Rao's suspension and recognised it as time spent on duty. It enabled him to receive full pay for being on suspension from February 8, 2020, to February 7, 2022, and from June 28, 2022, to May 30, 2024.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
South films are deeply rooted in their culture and traditions: Raveena Tandon
The actress reveals that she has always loved filming in the South and adds, 'I was wondering why I get less work in the South. Whether it's Tamil, Telugu or Kannada cinema, just being down south is an enjoyable treat. I love the kind of work done here, and I want to work here more often." Raveena Tandon is making a return to Tamil cinema after 24 years (her last Kollywood outing was Kamal Haasan's Aalavandhan in 2001) with Lawyer, starring Vijay Antony. In a chat with us, the actress shares that she is excited to work in Tamil again after all these years and delving into how she picks her films, says, 'Obviously, the role should be good. And you have to have faith in your director. So, it's a combination of everything.' Excerpts: 'I was wondering why I get less work in the South' The actress reveals that she has always loved filming in the South and adds, 'I was wondering why I get less work in the South. Whether it's Tamil, Telugu or Kannada cinema, just being down south is an enjoyable treat. I love the kind of work done here, and I want to work here more often. I'm also a fan of South Indian food. Even in the '90s, I used to go back to Mumbai after filming here and tell people that it's so refreshing in the South because everyone's so focused. The films made here are deeply rooted in the culture, traditions, and rituals of the place they are set in. Therefore, people can identify with films on a mass level.' 'I'm refreshing and polishing my Tamil again' Now that she is back on a Tamil film set, Raveena informs us that she is 'refreshing and polishing my Tamil again'. She elaborates, 'Once I go back to Mumbai, I forget the language because no one talks in Tamil there. So now, I'm catching up with Tamil words again. Everyone here gets surprised when I speak the language and ask me, 'Oh, you remember Tamil?' I say, 'Yeah, it's all coming back to me.' Tamil is a beautiful language. The actual ethos of India comes from all our indigenous languages.' 'It's great to work with young blood because they've got innovative ideas' Raveena tells us that she currently doesn't have any aspirations and is rather going with the flow. 'It's great to work with young blood because they've got fresh and innovative ideas. Working with them keeps you updated, and you also get to enjoy different working styles. I keep hearing of such superb new directors, music composers, and talent coming up from the South, and that is always very tempting. I want to work with many directors from the South. I also want to do a film with my Hyderabad gang again,' states the actress. 'It's our perception that makes us think who's a grey character and who's not' Raveena has a rather interesting take on essaying grey characters. 'I enjoy playing grey characters. You might watch a character and think that they are grey, but in their mind, they are only doing what they think is right for them. For example, in KGF: Chapter 2 (2022), my character (Ramika Sen) was not grey. She was doing what was right for her country. It's our perception that makes us think who's a grey character and who's not,' she shares. 'I'm thoroughly enjoying the pace at which our film is being shot' Elaborating on her experience working on Lawyer, Raveena reveals, 'Although I have played a lawyer in Patna Shukla (2024), my character in Lawyer will be completely different. When I heard the film's plot from director Joshua (Sethuraman), I loved it. We are now shooting at such a pace that I feel two films can be made here in the time they shoot one in Mumbai or anywhere else in the world. And I'm thoroughly enjoying it because I hate wasting time. Wastage of time is wastage of the producer's money. I like it when the whole team is out there and working hard with josh.' 'I'm keeping my fingers crossed for KGF 3' Quiz her about KGF: Chapter 3 — the third film in the action franchise,starring Yash — and she says, 'I think the makers wanted to give the franchise a break because they didn't want the third film to come out very soon. They wanted to give it a little time so that people's curiosity would increase. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that a third film happens.'
