CHENNAI: Union Minister of State for MSME and Labour and Employment and BJP leader from Karnataka Shobha Karandlaje has tendered an apology, through the Madras High Court, for her comments made against Tamils in connection with the Rameshwaram Café blast in Bengaluru.
“I state that I have the highest respect and regard to the history, rich culture, tradition and to the people of Tamil Nadu, and I had or have no intention whatsoever to hurt the sentiments of people of Tamil Nadu by any conduct of mine. Hence, I hereby once again tender my apology to the people of Tamil Nadu for having caused any hurt by my comments. The same may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice,” she said in the affidavit filed before Justice G Jayachandran.
She noted that her comments about the people of Tamil Nadu while addressing media persons about the bomb explosion case was made without any intention to hurt the sentiments and feelings and having understood the comments had hurt them, she had retracted the comments and tendered profound apology through social media platforms.
She prayed for the court to record the affidavit and quash the FIR registered by the Madurai cyber crime police. When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, Advocate General PS Raman said he would get back to the court after getting instructions from the government whether the apology affidavit was satisfactory or not.
Student’s suicide: Notice to CBI on plea to quash charge sheet
Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras HC issued a notice to the CBI on a petition filed by the sole accused in a Class 12 student’s suicide case, seeking to quash the charge sheet filed by the CBI before a Tiruchy court.
The student died by suicide due to alleged pressure of religious conversion. Justice G Ilangovan was hearing the petition filed by Sister Sagaya Mary of Michaelpatti in Thirukattupalli of Thanjavur district. The victim, a Class 12 student at a school in Thanjavur died by suicide in January 2022 due to alleged mental stress given by Sister Mary, the hostel warden.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted the summary of the final report had not cited anything other than four different statements of the deceased, who had vaguely referred to stray incidents of scolding. The counsel further said the re-registered case was baseless as the deceased’s statements were not about violence or torture by the petitioner, and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. There was no prima facie case established against the petitioner, the counsel submitted.