adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Probe agencies, media mishandled Sushant case – The Tribune India

Published

4 years ago

 on


KTS Tulsi

Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP

CRiminal law does not allow the victim to prosecute directly because the victim can hardly be expected to take a balanced view. Therefore, the entire investigation and prosecution is put in the hands of criminal law experts to ferret out the truth, i.e. the unvarnished, unbiased truth. The victim cannot dictate terms to the investigation or prosecution in the way that it has sought to do.

A victim cannot interfere in investigation and during the prosecution, is given a supplementary role in assisting the public prosecutor. Allowing all of these to occur has caused an absolute mockery of the criminal justice system. For example, Rhea Chakraborty is being vilified for abetment to suicide without any evidence of intention or positive act on her part to see Sushant dead. The Supreme Court case of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal (1994) cautioned about careful factual scrutiny in abetment cases before acquittal or conviction.

If unbridled interference is allowed, no investigation would ever come to a conclusion. Allowing such interference at every stage facilitated media access. This caused a reversal of the “innocent until proven guilty” theorem in criminal law. Moreover, despite the absence of an iota of ‘reasonable doubt’, the media continued to concoct its own John Grisham novel. There is no difference between the mob lynching that occurs via ‘extra-judicial killing’ and a media trial. In both these cases, agencies other than the court assume the role of judge, jury and executioner. And eventually, even before the court hears the matter, the conjecture around the case causes competing narratives to engulf the public completely.

In Maharashtra vs Rajendra Jawanmal (1997), the court ruled that “a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.” Similarly, in Manu Sharma vs NCT of Delhi (2010), the court said, “The media publishes statements which outrightly hold the suspect or the accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by the court.”

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, says that “prejudicing trial and hindering the administration of justice” amounts to “contempt.” In the case of YV Hanumantha Rao vs KR Pattabhiran (1975), it was held that “when litigation is pending before a court, no one shall speak on it in such a way that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the prosecution or, such as impact on the defendant, the witnesses or bias against a party to the case in general. Even if the person who makes the statement honestly believes it is valid, it is still a court contempt.”

Therefore, the actions of the media put them at the risk of having committed contempt. People’s perspectives are being made volatile puppets by being tailored by political-interest-fulfilling media houses that dish out narratives to suit whichever political parties they cater to.

There was a tremendous delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). Until July 27 this year, there were no allegations made in this case. It was only 40 days after Sushant’s death that his family made allegations to the Bihar police. The delay in the filing of the FIR clearly shows how this was an after-thought. Legally, the Bihar police should have registered a zero FIR and then transferred it to the Mumbai police. But nothing of the sort happened. This caused the registration of an FIR at a place where no cause of action arose and was an abuse of the process of criminal law. Expecting the Bombay police to do their bidding was totally uncalled for.

There is also a privacy violation. Debatable, confidential facts about his mental health have been reported by TV channels. Sushant Singh Rajput has been accorded with several mental health conditions such as depression and bipolar disorder. The question that begs an answer here is whether such public disclosure amounts to a violation of the confidentiality which binds a doctor-patient relationship.

The reasoning employed by the court to allow the Patna police to exercise jurisdiction is problematic. The reasons are: first, Sushant’s father claims that his attempts to talk to his only son who was expected to light his funeral pyre were thwarted by the accused; secondly, under Section 181(4) of the CrPC, because of there being accusations of a criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money — which had to be eventually accounted for in Patna — the court held that it was legitimate for the Patna police to hold jurisdiction. The question here is: — is the father the sole heir of his son’s monies? Also, if the legal heirs of a deceased are based in different states, does each state gain jurisdiction?

Setting one agency after another by the government was unfortunate. It only managed to divert the attention from the key issue of whether Sushant’s death was suicide or murder. Based on Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI cannot carry out an investigation without the consent of the state concerned. There is one exception to this for constitutional courts which exercise their power under Articles 32 and 226: By handing over investigation within the jurisdiction of the state to the CBI — the court went on to exercise the power of a constitutional court.

The Criminal Procedure Code exists to ease investigation in each case with uniformity. The Sushant suicide case seems to have torn the procedural Code to pieces by failing to follow any semblance of what the Code mandates. Allowing the Bihar police to investigate a suicide that occurred in Mumbai amounts to ignoring the concept of federalism.

The case was formerly hijacked by ‘outsiders’ within the films to masquerade their bravado of having ‘made it’ despite not being products of nepotism. After this, it was about an easy target and a holy trinity of romance, with men shifting seats at the corners. Then, it moved on to Bollywood’s ‘drug problem’. Eventually, Sushant’s corpse became a vote-catcher for the political parties in poll-bound Bihar. Not once, not ever, was this about the actor himself. 

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Tech News in Canada

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending