[ad_1]
[ad_2]
#Watch #Video #BBC #News #Anchor #Blunder #Live #Internet #Stop #Laughing #Watch #Kashmir #News
( With inputs from : kashmirnews.in )
[ad_1]
[ad_2]
#Watch #Video #BBC #News #Anchor #Blunder #Live #Internet #Stop #Laughing #Watch #Kashmir #News
( With inputs from : kashmirnews.in )

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday issued summonses to the BBC, Wikimedia and Internet Archive on a criminal complaint filed by a BJP leader seeking to restrain them from publishing a documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots, or any other material defamatory to the RSS and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The complainant had said the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question” has defamed organisations like the BJP, RSS and VHP.
The court was told that though the documentary has been banned by the government, a Wikipedia page dedicated to the series provides links to watch it and that the content is still available on Internet Archive.

Wikimedia Foundation funds Wikipedia while Internet Archive is a US-based digital library.
“Issue summons of the suit for settlement of issues to the defendant (BBC, Wikimedia and Internet Archive),” Additional District Judge (ADJ) Ruchika Singla said, posting the matter for May 11.
Complainant Vinay Kumar Singh said he is a state executive committee member of the Jharkhand BJP and an active volunteer of the RSS and VHP. He claimed the BBC documentary defamed organisations like the RSS, VHP and the BJP.
The complainant sought a direction to the BBC and other respondents “to tender an unconditional apology” to him and the RSS and VHP “for the libellous and defamatory content published in the two volume documentary series.
“Pass a decree of damages of Rs 10 lakh in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants,” it further urged the court.
It claimed that the allegations made against the RSS and VHP were motivated by a “malicious intent to defame the organisations and its millions of members/ volunteers”.
“Such unfounded allegations are not only baseless but also have the potential to damage the reputation and image of the RSS, VHP and its millions of members/ volunteers, who have committed themselves to upholding the cultural, social and national values of India,” it said.
The complaint stated the release of the documentary has generated an atmosphere of terror and fear among members of various groups, and possesses the potential to trigger violence and jeopardize public order across the nation yet again.
It alleged that the BBC “strategically and purposefully disseminated unfounded rumours without verifying the authenticity of the claims”.
Furthermore, the accusations made therein foster animosity between multiple faith communities, in particular Hindus and Muslims, it claimed.
[ad_2]
#Documentary #row #Delhi #court #summons #BBC #defamation #complaint
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

[ad_1]
Rishi Sunak is under pressure to stop appointing Conservatives to key positions at the BBC after Richard Sharp’s resignation prompted criticism the party had undermined the broadcaster by flooding it with cronies.
Sharp quit as BBC chair on Friday morning after an investigation concluded he had failed to disclose key information about his relationship with the former prime minister Boris Johnson when applying for the job in 2021. Sharp helped facilitate an £800,000 loan guarantee for Johnson when he was in the running to take over the broadcaster but did not tell the appointments panel.
His resignation plunges the BBC into another period of uncertainty and mires the Tories in a further row over the behaviour of some its most senior members and appointees. It follows the recent resignation of Dominic Raab as deputy prime minister over bullying allegations and the sacking of Nadhim Zahawi as party chair over his tax affairs.
But it also gives Sunak an unexpected opportunity to put his stamp on the broadcaster by appointing a new chair for a four-year term.
Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, said Sharp had caused “untold damage to the reputation of the BBC and seriously undermined its independence as a result of the Conservatives’ sleaze and cronyism”. She called on Sunak to run a “truly independent and robust” recruitment process for Sharp’s replacement, saying that only this could “restore the esteem of the BBC after his government has tarnished it so much”.
Ed Vaizey, the Conservative peer and former culture minister, said the prime minister should make sure the next appointments process was “beyond reproach”.
Peter Riddell, who was public appointments commissioner when Sharp was given the job, said Johnson had been “conflicted” during the appointments process. He called on Downing Street not to leak the name of a chosen successor over the coming months in an effort to put off other candidates.
The report by the barrister Adam Heppinstall found Sharp had created a “potential perceived conflict of interest” by failing to tell an interview panel in late 2020 that he had discussed the BBC job with Johnson prior to sending in his application. Johnson went on to appoint Sharp to the job, months after friendly media outlets had been briefed that the former Goldman Sachs banker was Downing Street’s choice for the role.
Sharp was also criticised for not disclosing a discussion with the head of the civil service during the recruitment process, at which he introduced a man who would later organise a £800,000 personal loan facility for Johnson. At this time the prime minister was struggling with his personal finances due to the costs of his divorce. It is still not known who ultimately loaned him the money.
Sharp, a Tory donor who was previously Sunak’s boss at Goldman Sachs, quit on Friday morning. He concluded his continued presence at the BBC “may well be a distraction from the corporation’s good work”, while saying the lack of disclosure during the application process had been unintentional.

Sharp had originally indicated he intended to fight to save his job, but he ended up resigning immediately after its publication. Tim Davie, the BBC director general, was spotted visiting Sharp’s house on Thursday afternoon, prompting speculation the chair was encouraged to quit.
The investigation into Sharp’s appointment was particularly damning on the way the application process for the job was handled. Other candidates were put off from putting forward their names for the BBC job by the perception it was already lined up for Sharp, while at every stage it was made clear Downing Street wanted him to have the job.
Sunak will have the opportunity to select his preferred candidate for BBC chair, with the hiring process – and the independence of the preferred candidate – likely to be subject to enormous external scrutiny. The government has the ability to appoint the chair of the BBC and several other directors, in addition to setting the amount of money it receives from the licence fee.
One Downing Street source said they had been blindsided by Sharp’s resignation, given the indication he intended to fight on. “The PM really hasn’t been thinking about a successor to Sharp,” the source said. “He’s been focused on lots of other things, but not this.”
Rather than immediately accept Sharp’s resignation, the government has asked him to remain in the role for two months so it can select an interim chair before starting the lengthy process of finding a full-time replacement.
Under the terms of the BBC’s charter, the temporary chair has to be one of the seven non-executive directors who sit on the broadcaster’s governing board. They include public figures such as the former television presenter Muriel Gray, the financier Shumeet Banerji, the Welsh academic Elan Closs Stephens and the accountant Shirley Garrood.
The most explosive option available to Sunak would be to appoint the former BBC journalist Robbie Gibb, who became Theresa May’s director of communications when she was prime minister. He was appointed to the BBC’s board as a director by Johnson’s government and has repeatedly criticised perceived anti-Brexit and anti-Tory bias in the corporation’s output.
The simplest option would be to give the job to Damon Buffini, the deputy chair, who has been tasked with improving the BBC’s commercial performance. Another leading candidate is Nicholas Serota, the chair of Arts Council England.

The government will then have to start the process of recruiting a full-time chair of the BBC to serve a fresh four-year term. This gives Sunak the unexpected opportunity of putting a Tory-backed appointee in charge of the BBC’s board until 2027, making it harder for a potential Labour government to shape the national broadcaster if it wins the next election.
Sharp’s resignation comes at a troubled time for the broadcaster, which is facing a financial crisis after 13 years of cuts to its funding under a Conservative-led government. This week MPs criticised it for being too slow to move away from its traditional television and radio channels towards a digital future, saying the BBC risked being made irrelevant by rivals such as Netflix.
Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said Sharp “had lost the dressing room, he had lost the respect of senior figures in the broadcasting industry and besmirched the reputation of the BBC”. She urged the government to appoint a chair who would champion public service broadcasting.
Labour has called for the recruitment process, which is likely to take most of the summer, to be transparent and independent. The party is already running its own panel to review the workings of the BBC, which met for the first time last week. It will come up with policy proposals on strengthening the BBC’s independence from government, especially when it comes to appointments.
But top BBC appointments have always been in the hands of the government of the day, an influence that Labour may be loth to give up if it wins the next general election.
In his resignation statement, Sharp said that “for all its complexities, successes, and occasional failings, the BBC is an incredible, dynamic, and world-beating creative force, unmatched anywhere”.
[ad_2]
#Sunak #pressure #stop #choosing #Tories #BBC #jobs #Sharp #row
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

[ad_1]
A word of advice for anyone who has worked hard to acquire a reputation they cherish: if Boris Johnson approaches, if he comes anywhere near, run a mile. Richard Sharp is the latest proof that, even out of office, Johnson continues to act as reputational napalm, laying waste to careers and turning good names bad.
Sharp joins a long list that includes Christopher Geidt, who had the poison task of serving as Johnson’s adviser on ethics; Allegra Stratton, whom the former prime minister said had “sickened” him when she joked about a party in Downing Street, even though he had attended several himself; and the one-time rising star civil servant and current cabinet secretary, Simon Case, quoted this week as having said of Johnson, “I don’t know what more I can do to stand up to a prime minister who lies”. Each entered Johnson’s circle as a respected figure; each was diminished by their contact with the reverse Midas, the man who rots everything he touches.
One question left by Sharp’s resignation as chair of the BBC is: what took him so long? He hardly needed to wait for today’s report by Adam Heppinstall KC, with its verdict that Sharp’s failure to disclose his role in brokering an £800,000 loan arrangement for Johnson represented “a breach of the governance code”, to know that he could not possibly continue in a job whose defining duty is to maintain the independence of the BBC. As the former director general John Birt said a month ago, Sharp was “unsuitable” for the role, thanks to “navigating a loan for the prime minister at exactly the same time as applying for the job at the BBC. It’s the cosiness of that arrangement that made it unsuitable, and I wish the cabinet secretary had called it out.” (The cabinet secretary being Case, serially Midased by Johnson.)
According to those inside the BBC, Sharp had been a capable chair. But the manner of his appointment meant he could never do the job properly. Witness last month’s row over Gary Lineker’s tweet, aimed at Suella Braverman’s language on migrants. That was a moment when you might expect the chair to lead from the front, publicly explaining either why impartiality is central to the BBC’s mission or why it was vital that the BBC not succumb to government pressure – or both. Instead, Sharp was mute and invisible, too hopelessly compromised as the man who had helped bail out a fiscally incontinent Tory prime minister to say a word.
It’s baffling that all of this did not occur to Sharp himself long ago – including right at the start, when he submitted his job application and was required to identify any conflicts, or perceived conflicts, of interest. The fact that he didn’t mention his role in the Johnson loan, even though he had discussed the issue with Case, suggests he knew that it looked bad – that it would give rise to the “perception that Mr Sharp would not be independent from the former prime minister, if appointed,” as Heppinstall puts it. Given he knew the importance of perceived, as well as actual, neutrality for the BBC, that silence was itself disqualifying.

His grudging resignation statement suggests the penny has still not dropped. Dominic Raab may have started a fashion for passive-aggressive Friday departures, because Sharp was insistent that his breach of the rules was “inadvertent and not material”. Still, he invited our admiration for his decision “to prioritise the interests of the BBC” since “this matter may well be a distraction from the corporation’s good work were I to remain in post”. Er, yes, just a bit. Again, if preventing a distraction was Sharp’s concern, he should have gone the moment this story broke. As it is, he’s left multiple questions still to answer – including whether Johnson should not have recused himself from the appointment process on the grounds that he had an egregious conflict of interest, given that he knew Sharp had helped him out with the loan.
What’s needed now is not just a new BBC chair, but a new way of doing things. Even if he hadn’t got involved in Johnson’s personal finances, Sharp was hardly a non-partisan figure. He is a longtime, high-value donor to the Tory party, to the tune of £400,000. True, political parties, Labour included, have been appointing allies and chums to this role since the 1960s, but that practice needs to stop. Lineker distilled the case nicely: “The BBC chairman should not be selected by the government of the day. Not now, not ever.”
This goes wider than the BBC: there’s a slew of public jobs that might appear to be independently appointed, but that are quietly filled on the nod, or whim, of Downing Street. But it’s with the BBC that independence matters acutely. To understand why, look across the Atlantic.
This week’s announcement by Joe Biden that he will seek a second term had to fight for media attention with the firing of Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson. That’s because Carlson had become second only to Donald Trump in influence over the Republican party, able to make senior elected officials and aspirant presidential candidates bend to his agenda and ideological obsessions – even when mainstreaming previously fringe, and racist, ideas like the “great replacement theory”, with its claim of a deliberate, if shadowy, plot to replace white Americans with a more diverse and pliant electorate.
Fox News itself, with its repeated amplification of the big lie of a stolen election, is partly responsible for why nearly two-thirds of Republican voters do not believe a demonstrable fact: namely, that Biden won office in a free and fair contest in 2020. Today’s America is a land of epistemic tribalism: knowledge is not shared across the society, but rather dependent on political affiliation. There are red state facts and blue state facts, and which you believe comes down to which media you consume – which social media accounts you follow, which TV networks you watch.
In Britain, there have been efforts to lead us down that gloomy path. There are partisan, polemical TV channels now, desperate to do to Britain what Fox has done to America. And Johnson was Trumpian in his contempt for the truth, determined to create a world of Brexit facts that would exist in opposition to the real one. But if those efforts have largely failed – and if Johnson was eventually undone by his lies – that is partly down to the stubborn persistence in this country of a source of information that is regarded by most people as, yes, flawed and, yes, inconsistent, but broadly reliable and fair. Trust levels in the BBC are not what they were, and that demands urgent attention, but it is striking nonetheless that, according to a Reuters Institute study, aside from local news, BBC News is the most trusted news brand in the US. It seems that in an intensely polarised landscape, people thirst for a non-partisan source.
The BBC should be defended – and that process starts with governments treating it as the publicly funded broadcaster it is, rather than the state broadcaster some wrongly imagine it to be. That means giving up the power to pick its boss – and getting politicians out of the way. The BBC is a precious thing – so precious, we might not fully appreciate it until it’s gone.
[ad_2]
#Richard #Sharp #Boris #Johnsons #toxic #legacy #politicians #pick #boss #BBC #Jonathan #Freedland
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

[ad_1]
What have the now former chair of the BBC, the Labour veteran Diane Abbott and the ousted chancellor Nadhim Zahawi all got in common? Indeed, what do they share with Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and Matt Hancock?
The answer is that they have all been accused of things that so upset people as to cause them to lose or risk losing their jobs. Failing to disclose having facilitated a loan, enjoying an unwise liaison, holding a contentious opinion: the misbehaviour in question varies, but all was deemed sufficiently significant to risk ruining their reputations or future careers – or at least for their organisations to be under pressure to see them depart to appease its critics.
I will say nothing in their defence. All seem “guilty as charged” and I am happy for them to be told so to their faces. They broke the subtle web of acceptability we now weave around those in power, potentially trapping them at every turn. Perhaps Zahawi entered his income in the wrong tax column. Perhaps the BBC’s Richard Sharp should have told some committee he was a buddy of Johnson. Certainly, in any job, however much you may like your colleagues, it is advisable not to have sex with them.
But do the punishments fit the crime? Is Abbott’s explosive letter to the Observer enough to bring a distinguished career to a shameful end? If Hancock was qualified to be health minister, was the (presumably illegal) leaking of security pictures of a private embrace sufficient to wipe that qualification?
Break the law of the land and the law stipulates you can hope for a fair trial, due punishment and hope of rehabilitation. We no longer flog or deport those convicted of stealing rabbits, or shut them in stocks and pelt them with rotten vegetables. Yet that is the equivalent of what we often do to those whose behaviour or views are deemed “unacceptable”.
The people listed above were – with exceptions – perfectly good at their jobs. Some blurted out public apologies for what they said or did, but these are swept aside by the media as admissions of guilt. Investigators are hauled in to conduct private trials in murky Whitehall attics in a desperate attempt to appease the mob.
The crime of partying during lockdown of which Johnson and Rishi Sunak were accused – and for which their officials were primarily responsible – was reported to the police, judged and punished with a fixed penalty fine and much humiliating publicity. Justice was done.
Meanwhile, Johnson’s tangential offence of misleading parliament has beaten the Congress of Vienna for longevity. It has become a two-year festival of political retribution. Johnson has already lost the top job in the land. Now he is to be threatened with the end of his political career. I can think of a host of reasons why he should never again be allowed near public office, but telling a fib about an illicit party is not one of them.
The answer, of course, is that needs must. Intolerance of minor faults in those who rule us is the price we pay for being unable to get accountability for major ones. The Tory party this week permanently expelled its MP Andrew Bridgen for idiotically comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, and its former deputy whip Chris Pincher declared he won’t be standing at the next election after last year’s allegations of groping.
Labour has likewise banished Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone amid accusations of antisemitism. Yet not a day passes without news of politicians and other public figures committing some gross incompetence. This week, a Commons committee heard of the effective collapse of HS2’s £4.8bn Euston terminus without batting an eyelid. No one apparently is responsible.
No one has been condemned, let alone sacked, for the continuing refusal properly to compensate the victims of the Post Office computer scandal or the contaminated blood scandal. Likewise, no one has to answer for the ongoing pollution of rivers in England or corrupt PPE contracts. Ministers always “move on” and out of range. Justice for the Grenfell Tower tragedy is delegated to a reenactment on the stage.
This failure is ultimately derived from our polarised politics, which seems unable to tolerate unconventional opinions or behaviour, even from those who apologise for them. The weekly fight between Sunak and Keir Starmer across the dispatch box has become excruciating. Two apparently decent and reasonable men are forced to strip naked and scream at each other. Intelligent democratic accountability is lost in a swirl of charge and counter-charge. Tabloid politics demands blood.
When politicians and others in public life make it hard for us to hold them to account for major failures in government, the temptation is inevitable. We will hold them to account for minor failures of their own. We should be getting angry about what matters.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
[ad_2]
#Richard #Sharp #BBC #hold #miscreants #account #Simon #Jenkins
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

[ad_1]
Richard Sharp has resigned as BBC chair after he breached the rules on public appointments by failing to declare his connection to a secret £800,000 loan made to Boris Johnson.
Sharp quit on Friday morning after concluding his continued presence at the BBC “may well be a distraction from the corporation’s good work”.
An investigation by the UK commissioner of public appointments concluded Sharp had broken the rules by failing to declare his link to Johnson’s loan, creating a “potential perceived conflict of interest”.
The investigation also found that Johnson – when he was prime minister – had personally approved Sharp’s appointment as BBC chair, while the individuals running the supposedly independent recruitment process for the job had already been informed that Sharp was the only candidate whom the government would support.
Although this breach of the rules does not necessarily invalidate an appointment, Sharp said his position was no longer tenable and he had to quit. He intends to step down at a board meeting in June, at which point an acting chair will be appointed. Rishi Sunak’s government will then start recruitment process to find a full-time successor.
Earlier this year, the Sunday Times revealed that Sharp had secretly helped an acquaintance, Sam Blyth, who wanted to offer an £800,000 personal loan guarantee for Johnson. The prime minister’s personal finances were in poor shape while he was in Downing Street with his new wife, Carrie, and baby son, and was going through an expensive divorce.
Sharp decided to introduce Blyth to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, so they could discuss a potential loan. But the BBC chair insists he took no further role and there is no evidence “to say I played any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former prime minister”.
He added that he did not realise he had to declare the introduction during the recruitment process for the BBC job, saying: “I have always maintained the breach was inadvertent.”
It is still not known who ultimately provided Johnson with the loan, which became public only after he left office.
Sharp’s resignation comes at a tricky time for the BBC, which has been hit by criticisms it has become too close to the Conservative government – and faces questions over whether it has been too heavily influenced by ministers.
Labour’s Lucy Powell said the incident had “caused untold damage to the reputation of the BBC and seriously undermined its independence as a result of the Conservatives’ sleaze and cronyism”.
She added: “Rishi Sunak should urgently establish a truly independent and robust process to replace Sharp to help restore the esteem of the BBC after his government has tarnished it so much.”
The investigation into Sharp’s appointment was particularly damning on the way the application process for the job was handled. Other candidates were put off from putting forward their names for the BBC job by the perception it was already lined for Sharp. Government-friendly media outlets were briefed that Sharp was the government’s preferred candidate for the job before the application window had even closed.
“Leaks and briefing to the press of ‘preferred candidates’ for public appointments (referred to as ‘pre-briefing’) should be prohibited by ministers,” the report concluded. “In this case such pre-briefing may well have discouraged people from applying for this role. It can also undermine efforts made to increase diversity.”
MPs had already criticised Sharp, a financier and Tory donor, for “significant errors of judgment” in failing to declare the potential conflict of interest.
Sharp told MPs he had been attending a private dinner at Blyth’s house in September 2020 when the Canadian businessman said he had read reports that Johnson was in “some difficulties” and that he wanted to help. Sharp said he had warned Blyth about the ethical complexities of this.
At the time, Sharp was working in Downing Street on Covid projects, and told Johnson and Sunak of his aim to be BBC chair. He told the culture, media and sport committee in February: “I communicated to the prime minister and to the chancellor that I wished to apply and submitted my application in November.”
The government will now be able to select a new BBC chair on a four-year term, depriving a potential Labour government of making its own appointment until late 2027.
The part-time position involves overseeing the BBC’s operations and managing relationships with the government.
In his resignation statement, Sharp said that “for all its complexities, successes, and occasional failings, the BBC is an incredible, dynamic, and world-beating creative force, unmatched anywhere”.
[ad_2]
#Richard #Sharp #resigns #BBC #chair #failing #declare #link #Boris #Johnson #loan
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

[ad_1]
London: BBC Chairman Richard Sharp resigned on Friday over a report into whether he failed to properly disclose his involvement in the facilitation of a loan to former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Barrister Adam Heppinstall was appointed by the Commissioner of Public Appointments to investigate the claims which had first appeared in the Sunday Times, says the BBC.
Confirming his resignation, Sharp said the report, which was published on Friday, found “that while I did breach the governance code for public appointments, he states that a breach does not necessarily invalidate an appointment”.

He said the report finds he did not play “any part whatsoever in the facilitation, arrangement, or financing of a loan for the former Prime Minister”.
But he said with hindsight he should have disclosed his role in setting up a meeting between Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Sam Blyth — a businessman who was offering the then PM financial help — to the appointments panel during the scrutiny process ahead of him taking up the senior role.
Sharp said not doing so was an “oversight” and apologised for it.
In a statement, he said he did not want to be a “distraction”, adding that it had been an honour to chair the BBC.
He will remain in post until June until a successor is appointed.
In response to his resignation, the BBC board said: “We accept and understand Richard’s decision to stand down. We want to put on record our thanks to Richard, who has been a valued and respected colleague, and a very effective chairman of the BBC.
“The BBC board believes that Richard Sharp is a person of integrity.”
The board added that Sharp had a been a “real advocate for the BBC, its mission, and why the corporation is a priceless asset for the country, at home and abroad”.
Sharp, a former banker, was appointed as Chairman of the BBC on February 10, 2021. He previously worked at JP Morgan for eight years, and then for 23 years at Goldman Sachs.
[ad_2]
#BBC #Chairman #resigns #Boris #Johnson #loan #row
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi University (DU) told the High Court on Monday that the action of students screening the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi without permission, and organising protests, despite imposition of prohibitory orders, amounts to “gross indiscipline”.
A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a plea by the national Secretary of Congress’ student wing, NSUI, Lokesh Chugh challenging his debarment from the university on allegations that he organised a screening of the BBC documentary.
“We acted against the students who organised the screening of the documentary based on the newspaper reports which said that the two-part series has been banned in India,” the university submitted.

“Chugh was the mastermind behind the agitation and that video footage shows that he was actively involved in the screening of the documentary in the University campus,” the DU counsel added.
The intention to disrupt the academic functioning of the University has tarnished the image of the University, it was contended.
The DU apprised the court that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was imposed by the police on that date despite which students protested.
“The Committee after watching the videos found that the mastermind of the agitation was the petitioner. It was observed by the committee that around 20 students had gathered at 4 p.m. to showcase the BBC documentary and around 50 more students were there to watch the said documentary.”
It was noted by the court that DU’s response and Chugh’s counter are not on record and accordingly listed the case for next hearing on April 26 while asking both counsel to file their written submissions by Tuesday.
The DU has prohibited Chugh, of the National Students Union of India (NSUI) and a Ph.D. research scholar at the Department of Anthropology, from taking any university, college, or departmental exams.
During the last hearing, Justice Kaurav had remarked that the university’s order did not reflect application of mind.
“There has to be an independent application of mind which is not reflected in the order… The order must reflect the reasoning,” the court said.
Appearing on behalf of the DU, lawyer Mohinder Rupal had said that the university’s decision was based on some documents that he wishes to provide, while Chugh’s counsel had claimed that there is considerable urgency in the situation because the deadline for turning in his PhD thesis is April 30.
Justice Kaurav had responded that once the petitioner is before the court, his rights would be protected.
“Mr Mohinder Rupal seeks time to file counter affidavit. Let the same be done in three working days. Petitioner is also at liberty to file the rejoinder in two days thereafter. List on Monday,” the court had ordered.
The case pertains to a protest that was planned for January 27, 2023, on the DU campus during which, the BBC documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ was also shown to the general audience.
Chugh claims in his plea that he was not even there during the protest since he was attending a media interaction.
“Pertinently, the petitioner was giving a live interview at the time when the documentary was being screened inside the Faculty of Arts (Main Campus). Thereafter, police detained a few students for screening the allegedly banned BBC documentary and subsequently charged them for disturbance of peace in the area. Notably, the petitioner was neither detained nor charged with any form of incitement or violence or disturbance of peace by the police,” he stated.
However, the DU served him with a show-cause notice on February 16 alleging that he had disrupted law and order at the university during the screening. On March 10, a memorandum debarring him was then issued.
In his plea, Chugh claims that the university’s order against him went against the principles of natural justice and that the disciplinary authorities failed to even inform him of the allegations and charges against him. Therefore, Chugh demanded that the memorandum and notice that claim he was complicit in a breach of law and order be set aside. He has asked for a stay of the memorandum in the interim.
[ad_2]
#Screening #banned #BBC #documentary #amounted #gross #indiscipline #tells #Delhi
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Congress on Thursday slammed the Centre after the Enforcement Directorate registered a case against news broadcaster BBC India, alleging that the government is determined to impose a “dictatorial government” where there is “tyranny of the executive.”
The ED has registered a FEMA case against BBC India with allegations of foreign exchange violations, official sources said Thursday, two months after the Income-Tax department surveyed its office premises.
A deputy managing editor of the news company has deposed before the agency.

The ED has called for documents and the recording of statements of some company executives under provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the officials said. The probe is essentially looking at purported foreign direct investment (FDI) violations by the company, they said.
Asked about the development at a press conference at AICC headquarters, Congress spokesperson Anshul Avijit said, “We know the atmosphere that is being created by the Orwellian sort of state here where the freedom of expression and press has completely been clamped down.”
“It is not new, it has been happening, there are changes in laws but far from that there are threats and intimidation so whoever dares criticise this government is actually thrown in jail,” Avijit said.
He also spoke about the incident where students of Delhi University were suspended for showing a recent BBC documentary on 2002 Gujarat riots.
“This is the kind of state we live in. I really fear the freedom of the press as well. The new IT laws that have come out, they have come under much criticism but nothing deters this government.
“They are determined to impose a dictatorial government in which the executive rules, so you have the tyranny of the executive,” the Congress leader said.
On February 14 this year, the I-T department conducted survey operations at the London-headquartered broadcaster’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai as part of an investigation into alleged tax evasion. The survey went on for three days.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the administrative body for the I-T department, had then said the income and profits shown by various BBC group entities were “not commensurate” with the scale of their operations in India and they failed to pay on certain remittances by its foreign entities.
The BBC, after the tax survey, had said they will “continue to cooperate with the authorities and hope matters are resolved as soon as possible.”
The action had led to a sharp political debate with the ruling BJP accusing the BBC of “venomous reporting” while the Opposition questioned the timing — weeks after the broadcaster aired a two-part documentary ‘India: The Modi Question.’
[ad_2]
#Orwellian #state #created. #Cong #case #BBC
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )