Congress MP Imran Masood Criticizes Film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' and Modi Government Policies Congress MP Imran Masood has expressed strong criticism of the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge, accusing it of misleading the public. He questioned the relevance of such content, asking who would watch it and who would trust its narrative. Masood also criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies, particularly the demonetization move, which he claimed had severely impacted India’s economy. He argued that such decisions have caused significant harm to the country’s financial stability. Masood highlighted past government decisions that, according to him, have led to public losses. He specifically referenced demonetization, stating that Modi’s policy had disrupted the economy and left the nation in a difficult situation. The MP further criticized the film for glorifying such policies, urging instead that positive examples be showcased to inspire the public. During his remarks, Masood also drew a parallel to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, suggesting that if the government aims to demonstrate resilience, it should highlight instances like Gandhi’s response to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s actions during the 1971 crisis. He accused Modi of bowing to American leaders like Donald Trump, claiming this was done to protect himself and business magnate Gautam Adani. Masood asserted that Modi is aware of the country’s challenges but is compelled to make such decisions due to external pressures. His comments have sparked renewed political debate, with tensions rising in the political landscape. The MP’s criticism of the film and Modi’s policies underscores his broader concerns about the government’s economic strategies and their impact on citizens.#dhurandhar_the_revenge #narendra_modi #gautam_adani #congress_mp_imran_masood #demonetization
Supreme Court Dismisses Ravi Nair's Defamation Plea in Adani Case The Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected a petition filed by journalist Ravi Nair, who had sought to challenge a defamation case registered against him by the Gujarat crime branch. The case stems from an article co-authored by Nair and Pransh Verma for The Washington Post, which questioned the state-run Life Insurance Corporation’s (LIC) reported investments in the Adani group despite U.S. indictments against billionaire Gautam Adani and his son Sagar Adani. The article, titled “India’s $3.9 billion plan to help Modi’s Moghul ally after US charge,” alleged that the LIC had invested in Adani group stocks despite allegations of fraud and bribery against the business tycoon and his executives. The court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, questioned senior advocate Anand Grover, who represented Nair, about the legal basis for the petition. The bench emphasized that Nair’s plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, was not the appropriate route. Instead, the court directed Nair to file his petition under Article 226, which pertains to the High Court’s jurisdiction. The justices stated, “Why Article 32 petition? Go to the high court,” highlighting the procedural misstep in the case. The Gujarat crime branch had summoned Nair on February 12, requiring him to appear before a court on February 19. However, the Supreme Court bench ruled that the issues raised in the case could be addressed in the High Court. Nair’s legal team had sought protection from coercive actions until the case was transferred to the High Court, but the bench denied this request, noting that Nair could electronically file his petition.#supreme_court_of_india #ravi_nair #pransh_verma #gautam_adani #sagar_adani
