ECI extends date for inclusion of names till Dec 31
The Election Commission of India, on Friday, told the Telangana High Court that the last date for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls for Graduates constituencies in the State has been extended till December 31.Standing counsel for ECI made this submission before the division bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, dealing with the petition filed by advocate TV Ramesh seeking direction to the respondent authorities - Secretary to ECI, Telangana Chief Electoral Officer, and State Chief Secretary, to take steps for extending the date upto December 7 for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls for Graduates constituencies
On Thursday, the bench directed the ECI to inform its decision on the representation made by the petitioner seeking extension of the enrolment date. The bench suggested the ECI to take an appropriate decision on extending the date keeping in view the Covid-19 pandemic and natural calamities. Pursuant to earlier direction of the court, the ECI counsel informed the court about extension of last date for enrolment till December 31. As per the memo issued by the EC in September this year, a draft notification will be issued on December 1, and the eligible voters will have the facility to include their names, raise any objections, and changes in the voters list till end of the year, he added. After recording the same, the bench said that there was no need to pass any further order in the petition and closed the case.
HC allows release of RGV’s Murder with conditions
Paving way for the release of Ram Gopal Varma’s film Murder, a division bench of the High Court allowed the petition filed by Varma challenging the order of a lower court, on Friday. The lower court had stayed the release of film which is based on the honour killing incident, which took place at Miryalaguda in Nalgonda district. The High Court, however, directed the film producer and director, not to use the names and photos of the victim, Pranay Kumar, his wife, Amrutha, and her father, Maruthi Rao, without the latter’s consent and to declare the movie as fictitious prior to its release.
The bench passed this order in the petition filed by filmmaker Varma and producer Natti Karuna seeking to suspend the order of the lower court. The petitioners’ counsel K Durga Prasad contended that the subject film was not intended to hurt the respondent Amrutha and her family members. The film only highlights the love between a father and his daughter, he noted. Meanwhile, advocate V Raghunath, appearing for the respondent Amrutha, told the court that the subject film if allowed to be released would adversely affect the personal life of his client. After hearing the case, the bench allowed the petition with conditions.
Raju will not give consent to Netflix, says Counsel
Senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for B Ramalinga Raju of erstwhile Satyam Computers, on Friday, contended before the Telangana High Court that Raju has not given consent nor will give consent for the documentary ‘Bad Boy Billionaires’ made by Netflix, an over-the-top (OTT) platform company.
The trial court’s ex parte injunction order restraining Netflix from airing its new web series on OTT had protected his client (Raju) from being unduly defamed. Netflix wants to earn money through release of the subject documentary, but the resultant damage to Raju cannot be compensated. In fact, there is no censorship for documentary series released on OTT platforms, he added.
The senior counsel made these submissions before the division bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A Abhishek Reddy, dealing with an appeal filed by Netflix against the lower court order restraining release of the documentary, which is suspected to be based on the life story of Raju, Mehul Choksi, Vijay Mallya, and others.
Niranjan Reddy alleged that the representatives of Netflix had obtained Raju’s consent through dubious methods. The consent which was given by a person named Hari, who once worked under Raju, and such a consent cannot be considered as that of his client, he argued.The bench posted the matter to November 20 for hearing the arguments of the senior counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who is appearing for Netflix.