Bar&Bench News Network
Disgraced self styled godman, Swami Nityananda might be partially relieved with the Karnataka High Court staying the broadcast of the controversial videos. Erstwhile President of the Advocates Association, and former Member of Legislative Assembly, K.N. Subba Reddy has successfully sought a stay on the airing of the videos that showed the Swami in a compromising position with a film actress.
Whilst a copy of the order is not available with Bar & Bench, it is confirmed that Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd’s (ABCL) channel, TV9, and Suvarna who were arraigned as Respondents, have been directed to take the video clips off the air. The matter came up before a division Bench comprising Justices Gopala Gowda and B.S. Patil in the afternoon.
However, the same videos that have been taken off air, are freely available on several video streaming sites, including YouTube and Metacafe. “They have been posted on the internet by the TV9 and Suvarna themselves. We will file a separate application before the High Court to direct the channels to take them off the internet,” said Vivek. Appearing for the Government of Karnataka, Basavaraj K. Reddy aligned himself along with the Petitioner’s stand and supported the removal of the clips.
Sources inform us that the complaint filed against Nityananda by former disciple, Karuppa Lenin in Chennai accuses the godman of cheating and obscenity. The complaint is expected to be transferred to Karnataka since most acts are alleged to have happened at the ashram in Bidadi, an industrial town in the outskirts of Bangalore.
The complaint coupled with the videos resulted in agitation and violence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In a media release the Dhyanapeetam Ashram, run by Nityananda claims a ‘mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumor are at play’. The release adds that they are working on a legal course of action.
Reference: K.N. Subba Reddy vs. Government of Karnataka and Others; Writ Petition (GM) No. 7767/ 2010
|
- 1. "Crime reporting standards of BBC can be followed.Open flashy edia trials may do much harm if the affected persons are innocent, and ay be more than the legal punishents provided under the Acts.Balanced views and fair investigations with responsibility and accountability should be there. Law f detterance can be applied if the defendants are found guilty.". Sivananthan.T, Chennai
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










