Complainant seeks confiscation of suspected leopard tooth jewellery worn by Union Minister Suresh Gopi
The complainant, A. A. Muhammad Hashim, an office-bearer of the INTUC Young Workers Council, raised the demand while giving his statement to forest officials on Monday (July 21, 2025) .
The Pattikkad Range Forest Officer had summoned Mr. Hashim, who had approached the Divisional Forest Officers of Thrissur and Kannur with the complaint, on the day to record his statements.
Mr. Hashim also raised the demand for ascertaining the period of the making of the ornament worn by Mr. Gopi, apprehending that the ornament could be 'manipulated.'
Media links of the visuals aired by TV channels in which the actor was seen wearing the suspected ornament were handed over to the officials. The complainant also demanded that the original visuals be obtained from the TV channels to check the veracity of the complaint.
In his complaint, Mr. Hashim had stated that he had seen TV visuals of Mr. Gopi wearing the ornament at two functions, one in Thrissur and another in Kannur.
Prompted by Vedan incident
Mr. Hashim said he decided to take up the case following social media discussions that ensued after the arrest of popular rapper Vedan (Hirandas Murali) for wearing a suspected leopard-tooth-studded pendant. The Forest department acted against the singer after being alerted by police, which arrested him for possessing ganja. The investigation in the case was progressing, according to forest officials.
Possession of a wildlife trophy, which includes cured and uncured animal parts, is an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Those found guilty can get a jail term of up to seven years and a fine or both.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
P Chidambaram Responds To Controversy Over 'Evidence' Remarks On Pahalgam Terror Attack
Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram has addressed the political storm surrounding his recent comments on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. Chidambaram, in an interview, questioned why the attackers have not been apprehended or their identities revealed, asking, 'Why have you not apprehended them? Why have you not even identified them?' This led to accusations by the BJP, notably Amit Malviya, who claimed that Chidambaram and the Congress were giving a "clean chit" to Pakistan. Responding to the controversy on social media, Chidambaram criticized what he called the 'worst kind of troll'—those who distort interviews by sharing only selective clips. He stated that such actions misrepresent his position and spread misinformation. He also noted the lack of comprehensive official information about the case, highlighting that details have been released only piecemeal by various officials, while there has been silence from top ministers. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), meanwhile, has arrested two local men alleged to have assisted the terrorists and maintains that the attackers were Pakistani nationals, although their names have not yet been released. Chidambaram continues to challenge the narrative, suggesting that the possibility of 'homegrown terrorists' should not be dismissed without clear evidence and transparency from the authorities. Chidambaram is scheduled to participate in the upcoming parliamentary debate on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, where these issues are expected to be discussed in detail.
India Today
6 hours ago
- India Today
Drunk man calls Union Minister, threatnes to kill him; detained
Ranchi Police detained a man accused of threatening to kill Union Minister of State for Defence, Sanjay Seth, officials said on Inspector General, Chandan Kumar Sinha told Aaj Tak, sister website of India Today, that one individual has been detained and is currently being questioned by a special team. According to police, the accused made a threatening phone call to the minister while under the influence of alcohol. advertisement During the call, the accused claimed to have killed several people and said the minister would be next. A follow-up message was also sent, warning that the minister would be Seth immediately alerted both Ranchi and Delhi Police after receiving the threat call. A team was immediately formed and acted on the matter, leading to the detention of the police also informed that the man has a history of making threats while intoxicated, but this is the first time he has targeted a Union Minister.- EndsMust Watch
Scroll.in
7 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
