If bindi, sindoor and kajal are kept out of the ambit of the GST, why cannot the sanitary napkins be exempted, the Delhi High Court has asked the Centre.

The High Court bench said sanitary napkins were also a necessity and there cannot be any explanation for taxing them and exempting other items by bringing them in the category of necessity.

"You exempt bindi, kajal and sindoor. But you tax sanitary napkins. It's such a necessity. Is there any explanation for it," the bench said.

The court also expressed unhappiness over absence of any women in 31-member Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council.

"Have you discussed it with the Ministry of Women and Child Development before doing it or have you just looked at the import and export duty. This has to be done while keeping in view the larger concern," the bench said and listed the matter for December 14.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Zarmina Israr Khan, who is a PhD scholar in African studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, challenging the levying of 12 per cent GST on sanitary napkins. The plea has termed the levy illegal and unconstitutional.

Central government standing counsel Sanjeev Narula said if they would exempt sanitary napkins from tax, the cost of the product would go up.

"Reducing the GST rate on sanitary napkins to nil, will result in complete denial of input tax credit to domestic manufacturers of sanitary napkins, while zero rating imports.

This will make domestically manufactured sanitary nakpins at a huge disadvantage vis-a-vis imports, which will be zero rated," the counter affidavit, filed by the Centre, said.

To this, the bench said these are technical and statistical reasons and the government was playing with figures.The Centre's affidavit said as raw materials for manufacture of sanitary napkins attract GST of 18 or 12 per cent, even 12 per cent GST on sanitary napkins there in an inversion in the GST rate structure.

It said that the tax rate was neither arbitrary, nor violative of any of the constitutional guarantees espoused in the Constitution; as the procedure followed meet the constitutional tests laid down by the apex court through various pronouncements.

The court had earlier sought responses of the finance ministry and the Goods and Services Tax Council on the petition.

The petitioner has claimed that the petition has been filed for the benefit of women in general, particularly those belonging to the lower economic strata of the society.

The plea filed through advocate Amit George said it was a real issue on the ground level and sought quashing of the imposition of 12 per cent GST on sanitary napkins, and declaring them to be liable to a 'nil' rate or a reduced rate.

The plea alleged that 12 per cent slab on sanitary napkins, a shade lower than 13.7 per cent in the previous indirect tax regime, is ex-facie unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary which has witnessed strong dissent and calls for corrective action from individuals and organisations across the country.

The petition said that the government had exempt goods like kajal, kumkum, bindis, sindoor, alta, plastic and glass bangles, hearing aids, passenger baggage, puja samagri of all kinds, and all types of contraceptives, including condoms, from the purview of taxation but not extended the exemption to sanitary napkins which are essential for the health of women.

"The government has grouped sanitary napkins with toys, leather goods, roasted coffee, mobile phones and processed foods amongst others for the imposition of a GST rate of 12 per cent under the present tax regime. Such an action/omission is palpably arbitrary and unreasonable," it said.

NEW DELHI -- Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains "by far" the most popular figure in Indian politics, the Pew Research Centre, an American think tank, said on Wednesday, releasing the main findings of its latest survey conducted among 2,464 respondents in India.

Modi at 88% is 30 points ahead of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi (58%), 31 points ahead of Congress president Sonia Gandhi (57%) and 49 points ahead of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal (39%), said the survey conducted between February 21 and March 10 this year.

Pew said the public's "positive assessment" of Modi is buoyed by "growing contentment" with the Indian economy: more than eight-in-ten say economic conditions are "good", up 19 percentage points since immediately before the 2014 election.

The share of adults who say the economy is "very good" (30%) has tripled in the past three years, it added.

Overall, seven-in-ten Indians are now "satisfied" with the way things are going in the country. This positive assessment of India's direction has nearly doubled since 2014, Pew said.

According to Pew, at least nine-in-ten Indians in the southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana and in the western states of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh hold a favorable view of the prime minister.

The same is true for more than eight-in-ten in the eastern states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and West Bengal and the northern states of Delhi, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

"Since 2015, Modi's popularity is relatively unchanged in the north, has risen in the west and the south, and is down slightly in the east," it said.

Notably, the survey reflects a 21 percentage points drop in favorable view of America among Indians from 70% in 2015 to just 49% in 2017.

Only 40% express confidence in President Donald Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs, down 34 points from their faith in his predecessor Barack Obama in 2015.

Same is the case with China, whose favourability rating among Indians have dropped from 41% in 2015 to 26% in 2017. The survey was conducted before the Doklam crisis.

According to Pew Survey, despite periodic outbreaks of religious violence, relatively few Indians see communal relations as a very big problem.

"Similarly, despite Prime Minister Modi's decision last November to abolish high-value bank notes, less than half of the Indian population sees the lack of availability of cash to be a major problem," it said.

Lacerating in its piercing intensity, Rahul Jain's Machines is a gut-wrenchingly raw portrait of working conditions in a textile factory based in India's Gujarat state. Jain takes us through a Dickensian factory without voiceovers and text inserts, making his work more realistic. He introduces few workers who give us a firsthand account of the working conditions in the factory. Even though the workers hold different viewpoints, they are all part of an amoral system that has no regard for their long-term welfare.

From the onset, it is obvious that the filmmaker wants to show us the real situation of labours through imagery. He opens the film with a continuous tracking shot that takes us through the textile factory. Jain, with the help of ace cinematographer Rodrigo Trejo Villanueva, constructs an aura around the workers that is constantly brimming with sepulchral tones.

In one of the most devastating moments of Jain's debut feature, we see a teenage boy working on an assembly line. He looks physically drained and it becomes more evident as we see him falling asleep every few seconds. His body undulates as he closes his eyes, tiptoeing amid life and death. Even in those frail moments, he seems incredibly aware of his body movements. Each time he gets close to the conveyor belt, he balances himself by holding onto a piece of machinery.

Later, as the boy fixes his eyes at the camera, the constructed facade of this capitalist system looks a lot more superficial. The yearning in his eyes poses hundreds of questions from the people who are running the state machinery, but they all remain unanswered.

The film's notes tell us that India's textile and garment industry is largely informal and poorly regulated. This US$40 billion industry employs around 45 million workers, among which 12 million are children. It further adds:

Overtime practice reaches about 70 to 80 working hours a week and is mostly not paid – or underpaid. With an average daily wage from US$2 to US$5, the workers take home between US$90 and US$150 per month.

These figures are startlingly abysmal. As the documentary unspools, it gets heartbreakingly difficult to accept that the labours who go on to work for added shifts even struggle to survive or afford a five-rupee cigarette. This gives a social advocacy angle to Jain's documentary, which is part exploration of working conditions in a textile factory and part political commentary on the vicious circle of labour exploitation.

The film informs us that one shift runs for approximately 12 hours and a worker gets US$3 per shift. An official of the factory reasons, "If I pay these illiterate folk too much and their stomach is no longer empty, then they won't care about the company." His viewpoint about the workers is not only parochial, but also nauseatingly hideous to a great extent. As he continues to speak with a heightened degree of insensitivity, it gets easier to understand the horrors of working under such conditions and it also becomes clear that the official holds no regard for his workers or their wellbeing. On a side note, he also monitors the activities of workers through a CCTV installed in his office.

Jain's approach cuts deep and evokes a sense of sympathy for people being exploited by such factory officials. Jain mostly uses images to show utter desperation and constantly brewing emotions that the factory workers face day in day out.

He makes the workers speak for themselves for most of the time. One of the workers says, "God gave us hands, so we have to work." He believes that they are not being exploited, while the other interviewees hold starkly different viewpoints. A middle-aged man adds, "Poverty is harassment, sir." On the other hand, a teenage boy reveals that each morning when he reaches the factory gate, he wants to return to his home. However, he has to work in order to feed himself.

Jain artistically mounts these harrowing interviews to depict the crippling effects of globalisation. His feature film's title also refers to the clangouring textile contraptions used by labours to produce cotton sheets. In a constant struggle to wrestle with these machines on a daily basis, it almost gets difficult to discern the difference between labours and machines.

In his debut feature, Jain honestly portrays a wide disconnect amid makers and buyers of these textile products. His artistry is all the more glaring in one of the film's scenes, where he shows factory workers leaving for their homes in a rainstorm. Most of them were covered with thin plastic bags to shield themselves from the rainwater. Like this sequence, Machines is filled with moments that punch you in the gut and question your ethical concerns. Jain shows us the truth in a hall full of shattered people, with every gaze enough to draw blood.

The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.

If you live in Mumbai like I do, you've probably become used to seeing the streets, walls, and the inside of buildings full of red paan stains. As everyone knows, those red stains are the least of the problems associated with gutka and paan masala.

Thankfully, a few years ago the state government banned the sale of gutkha, and later banned the sale of scented supari/paan masala. Doctors and activists welcomed this ban. Unfortunately, the government recently modified the ban to permit the sale of 'scented supari', at least until the report of a one-member committee constituted to look into the ban. Thankfully, it appears that better sense prevailed and the ban was reinstated for six months. Why is this a problem even though the ban was reinstated? Because scented supari has areca nut, a known carcinogen, and the government shouldn't even be considering lifting the ban in the first place.

A 2014 study published in the Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology, found that there is "substantial evidence for carcinogenicity of areca nut in cancers of the mouth and esophagus" The study also noted that areca nut affects almost all the organs in the human body, including the brain, heart lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and reproductive organs. The study also notes that, apart from being a carcinogen, areca nut can cause a number of other health issues as well, including suppressing the immune system and type II diabetes. The study concludes by stating that there is an urgent need for strict legislation to regulate the production and commercial preparation of areca nut products.

Several packaged betel nut products have tobacco in them and this could act as a gateway to a chewing tobacco habit in children

The biggest reason why lifting the ban on scented supari is a problem is that its primary consumers are kids who think it is a harmless mouth freshener. According to a 2012 study on the consumption of scented supari by school going children in Indore, 27 percent of kids' chewed areca nut and, out of those who did 81% of them used sweetened and flavoured areca nut products. The study also noted that the majority of kids who chewed areca nut were not aware of the harmful side effects.

Several packaged betel nut products have tobacco in them and this could act as a gateway to a chewing tobacco habit in children. A 2016 survey on the perceptions of smokeless tobacco among school children in municipal schools in Mumbai found that 17.9% of them used betel nut products.

The study concluded that the kids were more likely to identify cigarettes and beedis as tobacco products than gutkha, mishri and khaini. The study concluded that the high use of smokeless tobacco products coupled with low levels of knowledge among the kids is indicative of the need for educational programs to increase awareness about the side effects of these products.

It is abundantly clear that there doesn't appear to be any need to constitute a committee to further examine whether or not scented supari is harmful. Considering the fact that kids are the primary consumers of scented supari, the Government shouldn't even be considering lifting the ban.

The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.

The Hindu Mahasabha office in Gwalior's Daulatgunj, where Nathuram Godse is said to have stayed for a week prior to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was yesterday earmarked by the far right Hindu party as the site for a temple to Gandhi's killer.

The Hindu Mahasabha laid the foundation of the temple in the office after the Madhya Pradesh government reportedly turned down their request for land to build the temple, a structure expected to offend millions of people who regard Gandhi as the 'Father of the Nation' and revere him for his lifelong teachings of non-violence and firm stand against social oppression.

"We had sought land from the Gwalior administration for a grand temple in memory of Nathuram Godse. Our plea was denied, so we have decided to build a temple inside our Daulatgunj office in Gwalior, " Jaiveer Bhardwaj, a Hindu Mahasabha leader, told the Telegraph newspaper.

It is believed that the gun used to kill Gandhi also came from an unidentified owner in Gwalior.

The paper quoted state Congress leader Manak Aggarwal as saying that it was "an insult to glorify a killer."

"The BJP has over 25-26 affiliate-wings which remain engaged in bizarre acts and later the BJP disowns their deeds," Leader of Opposition, Ajay Singh, told News18.

Moody's Investor Services lifted the Government of India's local and foreign currency debt ratings to Baa2 from Baa3, saying continued progress on economic and institutional reforms will enhance India's high growth potential.

The rating agency said that the reforms will improve the business climate in the country and raise productivity.

Moody's also changed its rating outlook to stable from positive, saying that at the Baa2 level the risks to India's credit profile were broadly balanced.

Moody's said the recently-introduced goods and services tax (GST), a landmark reform that turned India's 29 states into a single customs union for the first time, will promote productivity by removing barriers to interstate trade.

"In the meantime, while India's high debt burden remains a constraint on the country's credit profile, Moody's believes that the reforms put in place have reduced the risk of a sharp increase in debt, even in potential downside scenarios," the ratings agency said in a statement.

Moody's expects India's real GDP growth to moderate to 6.7 percent in the fiscal year ending in March 2018 from 7.1 percent a year earlier.

Moody's also raised India's local currency senior unsecured debt rating to Baa2 from Baa3 and its short-term local currency rating to P-2 from P-3.

The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi eased tax requirements last month for small- and medium-sized companies in response to growing criticism of its economic stewardship.

Wednesday, 15 November 2017 was a momentous day for all Australians. On this day, a majority of Australians announced support for marriage reform in this country. Almost 62% of Australians who responded to a nation wide postal plebiscite, voted in favour of 'same-sex marriage' reform. The nation-wide survey attracted a record high participation with almost 81% of eligible Australians having their say.

As someone who participated in this survey and had the opportunity to let my opinion known in this matter, I personally feel there is a deeply harmonious societal messages that transcend the more obvious outcome of the survey.

The clear mandate by a majority of Australians to endorse same sex marriages indicates a step forward for the greater Australian society.

Whilst the clear mandate by a majority of Australians to endorse same sex marriages indicates a step forward for the greater Australian society, it is the respectful manner in which this survey was conducted, and the dignity with which most Australians have accepted and reacted to the results of the survey, is really admirable.

The question of 'same-sex marriage' reform had long been debated in Australia over the past several years. At its very core, 'marriage reform' to include same sex marriages is a deeply sensitive issue that has long divided the Australian population with strong opinions in favour and against the reforms. Various Australian political parties had toyed with idea of marriage reform over the years, yet most of them failed to legislate any changes, eventually, throwing it back to the Australian public to have their say about an issue which was believed to be contentious to the society at large.

The plebiscite attracted furious debate from all quarters leading up to the survey.

The plebiscite attracted furious debate from all quarters leading up to the survey. People were free to communicate and broadcast their opinions in relation to marriage reform and both sides of the camp undertook extensive awareness campaigns to empower, influence, and inform the public.

Some hired planes and etched a cloudy 'Yes' across the skies, while others placed banners stating 'It is ok to say No' along busy streets. Barring the occasional idiot, the entire survey that occurred over a period of few months was relatively peaceful and incident free. People voted in the anonymity and comfort of their homes and posted their opinions to the agency managing the survey.

Then, as the results were announced, those who celebrated the outcome were mindful enough to respect the perspective of 38% Australians who voted against the reform. Those who held a view against same sex marriage, too, seemingly accepted that the nation as a whole had decided against their preference and were prompt to accept the verdict. Curiously though, the media and political commentary post the survey results was focused heavily on protecting the religious and social freedom of all those who do not believe in same sex marriage.

Then, as the results were announced, those who celebrated the outcome were mindful enough to respect the perspective of 38% Australians who voted against the reform.

Effecting major social changes within communities, and countries is a daunting task, especially if those changes pertain to long-standing, and deeply entrenched societal norms of those communities. Countries that have a progressive streak about them, are respectful, inclusive, patient, and extremely empowering while facilitating such changes and this marriage reform survey in Australia is potent example of one such society.

Herein, lies a little lesson for countries like India that flaunt huge communal diversity yet remain ingloriously inept at holding a respectful debate about matters of differing religious, and societal opinions.

The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.

By Manipadma Jena*, Kolkata, West Bengal

As street lights flicker on at dusk, they reveal a tiny signboard tucked among the branches of a mango tree that points to a shelter for homeless women. Inside the dimly lit hall, Gauri Rout sits on a plastic floor mat, staring at the wall, while a young woman stands guard at the door. The women appear to be alone.

As the darkness falls with a nip in the air warning of the winter cold, a few more women, most of them pavement dwellers, walk into the hall with their teenage daughters. "They will be safe here in the night time," they said.

"We plaster our daughters' faces black with oil and soot when sleeping on the footpath lest drunken men eye them and carry them away in the night," Akila Bibi told VillageSquare.in. The 45-year-old has since moved to a canal-side ghetto in north-central Kolkata, eastern India's megacity. She married off her daughter the month she reached puberty.

"Verbal violence is an everyday occurrence for girls and women and, in the open, worse things can happen," said Sudeshna Das of Calcutta Samaritans, an organization that works with women street dwellers.

In August last year, the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl abducted from a central Kolkata pavement made headlines when it was revealed that she had also been gangraped in a moving car by cab drivers. Her body was found floating in a canal and showed she had been strangled to death.

Plight of the homeless

Incidents of violence against women and the homeless prompted a Supreme Court order in 2012 that for every 100,000 city population, one homeless shelters must be built across all Indian cities. During the 2014 bitterly cold winter, over 100 homeless people died in New Delhi. Lack of shelter leads to unnatural deaths during peak summer and winter months when thousands huddle out on the roadside, pavements, in unused drainpipes, under staircases or in temples and railway platforms.

The central government launched the Shelters for the Urban Homeless scheme in 2013 and the next year augmented it with teaching high-demand skills to the homeless to equip them to earn. Currently covering 790 cities, the scheme mandates one shelter of every 100,000 city population. At the shelters, rules say homeless occupants must be provided basic facilities like toilets, drinking water, beddings and blankets, lockers, first-aid kits, and a kitchen. Through institutional tie-ups with shelters, periodic health check-ups, some medicine cost reimbursement and legal aid too should also be accessible to them. Fifty square feet of space is mandatory for each occupant, an area that can hold a floor mattress to sleep on and a suitcase beside.

However, reviewing the schemes' implementation over the past years, a Supreme Court-appointed panel headed by retired Delhi high court judge Kailash Gambhir came up with a grim picture for urban homeless people. In August this year, it said over 90% of them have no roof over their heads. "Despite the availability of funds and a clear mechanism through which to disburse them, there is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs on the ground," the judges noted.

The 2017 committee reviewed progress after the central government informed the court that not even half of the Rs 21.85 million released has been utilized by states to build and equip homeless shelters.

Under-counting the homeless

According to the 2011 Census, 938,000 people were homeless in India. This is a huge under- estimation according to activists working in the field. At least 1% of every Indian city and town population is homeless, the Supreme Court Commissioner's Office estimates. India's urban population is 377 million, according to Census 2011.

"Based on this, 3.7 million (1% of 377 million) are homeless in India's cities, which means 218,750 shelters are needed across the country," Indu Prakash Singh, Leader, ActionAid India's Urban Knowledge Activist Hub, told VillageSquare.in in an email interview, contesting the sub-one million homeless count given by the census.

In Kolkata alone, India's third largest city, there are no less than 150,000 homeless out of 14.1 million population counted in 2011 in the metropolitan area (Kolkata city together with its suburbs), according to campaigners for the Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN). But Census 2011 counted only 70,000 homeless, half the actual numbers.

Identifying lower number of homeless results in inadequate shelter facilities being built, campaigners said. Currently Kolkata city population itself is 4.7 million. Activists say that Kolkata has just 33 shelters, but the majority can accommodate only 40 people, not the 100-occupant capacity the 2013 shelter scheme mandated. Very few offer the much-needed referral to health, employment or legal aid services and the majority do the even provide the 50 square feet of space.

Surajit Neogi, spokesman for the urban poverty arm of ActionAid India, told VillageSquare.in that up to 60% of existing shelters in Kolkata are inaccessible to its homeless. A major reason for this is that in West Bengal entire rural families migrate out together. But when they reach Kolkata, there is not a single family shelter. The street is the only place they can remain together, he said.

The difficulties for the city's street people are made worse by the fact that 14-year-old boys are seen as adults by authorities, so if their mothers are driven out by domestic violence, they are separated from their older sons at shelters, thereby losing a crucial source of support. Kolkata has an estimated 20,000 homeless children, studies find.

Even the 33 shelters in Kolkata and most other cities remain empty mainly because the distance between them and bus stands, railway stations, market depots — areas where the homeless work and find it convenient to live, rather than 10 km to 15 km away, Neogi said. Here work starts at the crack of dawn and runs late into the night. They have neither the money nor the time to spare for the daily commutes.

The latest justice Gambhir's report also mentions drug addicts occupying many shelters and other homeless avoiding to stay with them. Neogi said family attendants of outstation hospital patients, cab drivers and such like people pay a nominal amount and are illegally staying in several empty shelters. "These locations are on prime land worth several crores of rupees, who will give them for homeless people's shelters?" asked a Kolkata Municipality Corporation official, requesting anonymity.

Singh says because suitable land for building shelters is becoming a major obstacle, state governments can deploy portable cabins instead, even if for a few next years. Lightweight metal portable cabins are in use in Delhi since 2014 winter.

"The porta-cabins are, however, a temporary measure. State governments should aim for a housing continuum for the homeless — the transition should ideally be from shelters to workers hostels, transit houses and finally to secure-tenure housing," Singh said.

Starvation dogs the homeless

Activists say flood and drought most often drive the rural poor to cities. Those who are landless among them often stay on. Risking lives under the open city skies, they hope its many work opportunities will help them survive somehow. "But they are virtually an invisible population," Neogi told VillageSquare.in.

Not covered under food schemes, basic health services, free education that are provided for below-poverty population, even voting rights are denied to them because they cannot provide a proof of residence.

For 55-year-old Rout, a widow who has no family to return to, hunger is also a constant. Police found her sitting under the street lamp for two days and brought her to the Ghaliff Street shelter under West Bengal's anti-vagrancy laws, shelter superintendent Uttam Bera told VillageSquare.in.

Rout said she skips lunch every other day and at night, staves away hunger pains with a handful of puffed rice and glasses of water. She has no money needed to buy medicine for knee arthritis that makes walking difficult, let alone finding work. And despite being among India's poorest of the poor, Rout remains deprived of social security that could provide her with subsidized rice or free healthcare.

She can get these only by producing a government-issued identity document. For the government to issue her an identity paper, a proof of residence is mandatory. Rout has none.

Manipadma Jena is a journalist based out of New Delhi and Bhubaneswar.

This article was first published on VillageSquare.in, a public-interest communications platform focused on rural India.

The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.

NEW DELHI -- A woman was allegedly gang-raped and looted by a taxi driver and his associate in Delhi.

A case has been registered in Hauz Khas police station.

On November 14, the woman took a taxi at midnight near Ansal Plaza to go to Rohini. The driver allowed another person to board the taxi and both started misbehaving with the woman.

The girl was taken to Greater Noida where the driver and his associate allegedly raped the victim.

The accused took away her gold ornaments, cell phone and Rs 12,000 cash and dropped her near Greater Noida and fled away.

A case has been registered at Hauz Khas police station and the investigation is underway.

"The courts should be extremely slow in passing any kind of restraint or order stopping a creative man from writing drama, a book, philosophy or projecting his thoughts in a film or theatre art."

This is what a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had to say as it disposed of a petition filed by Nachiketa Walhekar, a man who allegedly threw ink at Aam Aadmi Party chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in 2013.

Walhekar, through counsel, sought a stay on the release of the film An Insignificant Man, based on the life of Kejriwal. His counsel argued that the film portrayed Kejriwal as a victim, and hence violated Walhekar's right to a fair trial.

At a press conference at the Constitution Club in Delhi, Walhekar, who claimed to be a BJP worker from Maharashtra, threw ink on Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan and Manish Sisodia.

"They have betrayed the people of this country. They have betrayed Annaji. They have betrayed the Jan Lokpal movement," Walhekar had said at that time. Walhekar claimed that he has been depicted as a convict in the movie despite the fact that trial in that matter was still pending, according to PTI.

"The incident happened in 2013. It was alleged that the petitioner had thrown the ink on Kejriwal. Trial is still pending. How can they show me as a convict of throwing ink at Kejriwal," Walhekar's lawyer argued.

"It is worthy to mention that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with."

His counsel told the bench, also comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, that the film contains a video clip, which was originally shown by media, pertaining to him and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should not have granted a certificate to the movie for its release.

"It is worthy to mention that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with," the bench said.

It said when the CBFC has granted a certificate and only something with regard to the petitioner, which was shown in the media, was being reflected in the movie, "this court should restrain itself in not entertaining the writ petition or granting injunction".

"Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind," the bench said.

It said that "human history" records that there were many authors, who expressed their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also created characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of.

"A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law."

"A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law," it noted in its order.

Regarding the petitioner's apprehension that the documentary film would be used as an evidence during the trial of the case, the bench said it cannot be commented upon as it would be for trial court to adjudge under the Evidence Act.

The bench, however, said that prohibiting exhibition of a documentary or a film was "very serious" and courts should be very slow in interfering with it. It said that only the courts have the right to convict a person of any crime.

"Everyday, debate takes place in this court and people write about it as they understand. We do not gag them. Pre- censorship by courts should not be done," the bench said.

The court's ruling comes at a crucial time for cinematic freedom.

The Shri Rajput Karni Sena, protesting Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Padmavati has called for a country-wide bandh on 1 December. Mahipal Singh Makrana of Karni Sena threatened to maim Deepika Padukone, the actress who plays the titular role in the period drama.

Rajputs never raise a hand on women but if need be, we will do to Deepika what Lakshman did to Shurpanakha: Mahipal Singh Makrana of Rajput Karni Sena in a self-made video #Padmavatipic.twitter.com/82AWKGO7IU

— ANI (@ANI) November 16, 2017

Recently, filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh resigned from his post of jury chairperson to register his protest against interference by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry at film festivals.

The I&B Ministry allegedly got two films — Sanal Kumar Sasidharan's Sexy Durga (which was re-titled S Durga so it could play at the Mumbai Film Festival) and Ravi Jadhav's Nude — dropped from the selection of the International Film Festival of India, slated to take place in Panjim from November 20. The films were dropped despite being selected by the 13-member IFFI jury, a committee ironically formed by the Ministry itself.

(With inputs from agencies)

As two Uttar Pradesh ministers of the Yogi Adityanath cabinet watched in silence, Ranjeet Kumar Srivastava, the outgoing chairperson of the Nawabganj Nagar Palika, openly threatened Muslims at a rally earlier this week. He gave Muslim voters the ultimatum of either voting for his wife Shashi Srivastava, who is contesting the civic polls to be held later this month in Barabanki, or face "unforetold difficulties."

The Indian Express published a part of his speech, which is nothing short of alarming.

"Samajwadi ki sarkar nahi hai. Yahan par tum jaa kar ke DM, SP se apna kaam nahi kara sakte ho. Yahan par tumhara koi neta tumhari koi madad nahi kar sakta hai. Sadak, khadanja, naali nagar palika ka kaam hai. Doosri bhi kuch museebatein tumhare upar aa sakti hain. Aaj tumhara koi pairokar BJP ke andar nahi hai. Agar hamare sabhasadon ko tumne bagair bhedbhao ke chunav nahin jitaya... Agar Ranjeet Sahab ki patni ko tumne vote de kar ke chunav nahi jitaya... To yeh doori jo tum banane ja rahe ho, ab agar yeh doori banegi to tumko Samajwadi Party bachane nahi aayegi. BJP ka shashankaal hai. Jo kasht tumko nahi jhelne pade the, woh kasht tumko uthane pad sakte hain."

He essentially told Muslims that if they did not vote for Shashi Srivastava, the Samajwadi Party, not in power any more in the state, will not "be able to save them".

He went on to say that he was not begging for their votes, but simply informing them that if they voted for his wife, they'll be untouched, but if they didn't, there will be "difficulties".

Srivastava later told ETV that he didn't threaten Muslims but "was just trying to make them understand that there is a huge difference between Hindu and Muslims and these differences should come to an end."

Ministers Dara Singh Chauhan and Ramapati Shastri were present on the stage when Srivastava made the threats.

For us the figure is not the most important. Each unnecessary death is one too many. Geert Ates, director of United for Intercultural Action

I’m not convinced, I have to be honest. Marijuana is a drug that’s impairing, but not one that’s known to cause issues like those described in the paper. Dr. Bruce Goldberger, chief of forensic medicine at the University of Florida

There are so many things going wrong in our world right now, when we’re given the chance to do something right, we should do it.

It is a fact that most of those who raged and fulminated and fatwa-ed against Salman Rushdie had never ploughed through The Satanic Verses. Geoffrey Robertson who defended Rushdie in the blasphemy case writes "As with the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland, his fatwa was a case of sentence first and trial later." And so it is with Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmavati, a film that has not yet been released but has already become target practice for the likes of the Shree Rajput Karni Sena, issuing threats of violence and bodily injury.

Mahipal Singh Makrana, the president of the Sena has threatened to do to Deepika Padukone, the lead actor in the film what "Lord Ram's brother did to Surpanakha." Her latest "provocation" was to say that nothing can stop the release of Padmavati. The film's sets have already been vandalised, not once, but twice. Bhansali himself was attacked while shooting in Jaipur. Thakur Abhishek Som, national president of the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Yuva Mahasabha demanded that Padukone leave the country or face beheading. He announced a Rs 5 crore reward to anyone beheading Bhansali or Padukone though he offered no proof the Yuva Mahasabha has Rs 5 crore to spare. He has finally been booked but remains defiant. The Bajrang Dal has already protested against even showing the trailer of Padmavati in Meerut. The Karni Sena vandalised shops in a mall in Kota in Rajasthan where a theatre was screening the trailer. To add more drama the Shri Rajput Karni Sena has vowed to write letters of protest in their own blood. At least it's their own blood.

It is time, yet again, for the lumpen fringe to relish their fifteen minutes of fame.

Bollywood films often do not even pretend to pay lip service to logical accuracy. It's ludicrous that they are being held to demands of historical accuracy.

At one level, one could ignore them, deny them the media oxygen they desperately crave as they posture before news cameras. But when the Uttar Pradesh government says they are concerned that the release of Padmavati could be provoke "serious law and order problems" it means the fringe has very much entered the mainstream. "The release of the film of December 1 is not in the interest of peace and order," the Uttar Pradesh Home Department has told the Union Information and Broadcasting ministry. The Sarv Samaj Samiti blocked the gates of Chittorgarh shouting "Jai Jai Rani Padmini." The CBFC has returned Padmavati's application for certification citing "technical difficulties" which will probably delay its release.

But at least the Karni Sena and its cohorts are unequivocal about their demands, bloodthirsty as some of those demands are – heads and noses.

The government is playing a far more duplicitous game – talking pieties about law and order on one hand, yet indulging and coddling those threatening to disrupt law and order.

Haryana minister Vipul Goel has said "glamourising Alauddin Khilji's character" was "like praising those who carry out acid attacks on girls."And it does not really help matters when highway minister Nitin Gadkari says "People have a right to be offended... filmmakers should not distort historical facts." And he's added that freedom of expression is not absolute.

Of course, people have a right to be offended. It's probably the right exercised with most gusto in India these days. But to be offended means to not read a book, to not watch a film, to not listen to a song. To be offended can even mean a call to boycott a film. To be offended cannot mean to vandalise theatres, kill writers, ransack movie sets, and threaten to maim and behead people. And every time the government does not put that squarely front and centre, every time it says the law must be followed and then qualifies it with a "but filmmakers should show sensitivity" the vandals, the so-called fringe see it as a green signal, a wink and nudge. It is grotesque that Sanjay Leela Bhansali needs to show sensitivity in his film but the Karni Sena can threaten to cut off someone's nose in real life.

The Kerala High Court has rightly asked if "we are going backwards" and whether the 1973 national award-winning film Nirmalyam could even be made today.

Bollywood films often do not even pretend to pay lip service to logical accuracy. It's ludicrous that they are being held to demands of historical accuracy. A member of Chhattisgarh's former royal family has said Rajput maharanis never danced in front of anyone and the filmmakers "cannot play with history." It's as if Shah Rukh Khan's Ashoka was historically accurate. Or Mughal-e-Azam or Mohenjo Daro for that matter. Bollywood exists to tell stories, usually love stories preferably with song and dance, and mint money. It's not just Bollywood. Even Richard Attenborough's Oscar-winning Gandhi was attacked for sidelining Subhas Bose and Pakistanis objected to its portrayal of Jinnah proving that history will always be a contested place and no film whether it's Padmavati or Jodhaa Akbar or Bajirao Mastani will please everybody. But at least no one threatened to decapitate Ben Kingsley or Hrithik Roshan.

That Rajputs might be upset about how their heroes are portrayed on screen is perfectly understandable. But it's strange to think that Rajput honour is made of such flimsy tinsel that a Sanjay Leela Bhansali costume drama can bring it to such hysteria, that too sight unseen.

But it's not difficult to see how we have come to such a pass. Even when his sets came under attack, a flagrantly illegal act, Sanjay Leela Bhansali bent over backwards to appease those incensed not by his film but what was rumoured to be in his film. He and the film's stars denied the film has a dream sequence showing a romance between Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji. Bhansali put up a video on Facebook saying "The rumour is that in this film, there is a dream sequence between Rani Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji. I have denied this before and provided written proof of the same then, and today, through this video, I am reiterating that in our film, there is no scene between Rani Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji that will hurt any sentiments." But what if there had been a dream sequence? It's a dream, it's not reality. Shall we police dreams sequences for historical accuracy now? The Kerala High Court has rightly asked if "we are going backwards" and whether the 1973 national award-winning film Nirmalyam could even be made today. In that film a temple oracle pushed to poverty spits on the idol. It just goes to show that appeasing bullies only emboldens them especially when they feel the government has their back.

In the Rushdie case the Ayatollah Khomeini waited till the book came out before issuing the fatwa. But now we do not need to bother with such niceties. Today we do not even have to wait to see the film before deciding it's offensive.