Tag: death of sushant singh rajput

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Sushant Singh’s Flatmate Siddharth Pithani

Pithani had claimed in his plea that he was never found in possession of any drugs, and nothing which could suggest he was involved in drug trafficking was recovered from him.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on July 4 granted bail to Siddharth Pithani, the former flatmate of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, who was arrested in a drug case related to the actor’s death.

Rajput’s former girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty, who is already out on bail, is also an accused in the case.

A single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to Pithani on a bond of Rs 50,000.

Pithani was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in May 2021 from Hyderabad. He is currently in judicial custody.

He had been booked under section 27 (A) (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, among other charges. Pithani had sought bail, claiming he was framed in a false case.

He had claimed in his plea that he was never found in possession of any drugs, and nothing which could suggest he was involved in drug trafficking was recovered from him.

Rajput allegedly died by suicide in his Mumbai residence in June 2020. Later, the NCB began a probe, based on some WhatsApp chats, into an alleged drug supply racket in the film industry.

The NCB had also arrested several people, including Rhea Chakraborty most of whom are out on bail.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers (www.spif.in/seek-help/) they can call to speak in confidence. You could also refer them to the nearest hospital.

(PTI)

Maha Police Register Multiple FIRs Against People Accused of ‘Targeting’ Thackerays

According to reports, the FIRs have named people who were involved in “coordinated attacks” against the Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray and son Aaditya after the death of Sushant Singh Rajput.

New Delhi: The Maharashtra police have registered at least 10 FIRs against people who are accused of posting ‘defamatory content’ against the state’s chief minister Uddhav Thackeray and his son Aaditya on social media.

According to the Indian Express, the police claim that the FIRs were filed against people who launched “coordinated attacks” against the Maharashtra CM and his son after the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

The newspaper also reported that four persons have been arrested, while some individuals have been named in multiple FIRs.

In the aftermath of Rajput’s death, the Mumbai police and the Maharashtra government came under attack from a section of the media and several social media accounts for allegedly hampering the investigation. In early October, the Mumbai police claimed that over 80,000 fake accounts had been created on social media platforms to ‘discredit’ the police and the state government.

According to the Indian Express, most of the individuals who have been named or arrested for allegedly defaming the Thackerays are “either associated with or are seen to be sympathetic towards the BJP”.

The FIRs were registered after Dharam Mishra, a member of the Shiv Sena’s legal cell, registered complaints. “Most of the accused in the FIRs are supporters of BJP, and my question to the BJP is, how will they justify the tweets posted by these persons who are not only making derogatory and abusive comments against the persons sitting on constitutional posts, but are also outraging the modesty of women by making and posting obscene and indecent contents on social media, and also posting abusive and bad remarks against Hon’ble Supreme Court judges,” Mishra told the Indian Express.

Meanwhile, BJP MLA Ashish Shelar denied the allegations that the BJP had orchestrated the social media campaign against the Maharashtra government. “If the Maharashtra government does not like being attacked, what about those attacking the central government? The law should be equal for everyone. What locus standi do people have to write against the PM? Criticism is a part of democracy which should be welcome without anyone making below-the-belt remarks,” Shelar said.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, the Mumbai Police said that an investigation by cyber and forensic experts into hashtags such as #Babypenguin, #JusticeforSSR, and #ParamBirSinghResign had found “that the accounts were recently created (June 2020-October 2020)”.

The report found that 80% of the 1.5 lakh accounts which ‘vilified’ the police and Maha Vikas Aghadi government were “fake” and were operating China, Panama, Hong Kong, and Nepal. The accounts were created using proxy servers, the report said.

NDPS Act: Should Vices Be Criminalised?

The makeover of vices as offences to be taken cognisance of by law would end up with most of the human population in prison.

Deepika Padukone, Sara Ali Khan, Shraddha Kapoor, Rhea Chakraborty, Rakul Preet Singh – the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) is scripting a multi-starrer blockbuster for the small screen. Apparently, we have been getting the full form of NCB wrong as it has been rechristened Naricotics Control Bureau.

Far from being sexist or misogynist, the NCB is dutifully performing its functions and catching the ‘bad’ women of Bollywood, who like the Eve of the ‘Original Sin’ fame may have even lured some of our ‘nice’ boys into temptation.

Principles of criminal jurisprudence

The singling out of women actors apart, an examination of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) from the first principles of criminal jurisprudence seems an interesting avenue to explore and may lead to surprising conclusions. In all civilised jurisprudence life and liberty is valued and is curtailed if an individual commits a crime.

Generally, offences are acts which harm the person or property of others like murder, robbery and theft. The liberty of the perpetrator is curtailed by way of imprisonment due to the injury caused to the victim.

An offence is comprised of two elements the actus reus – the acts which make up the ingredients of an offence and the mens rea – the intention to harm or injure the other person or his/her property. The burden of proof of establishing both the actus reus and the mens rea is on the prosecution to prove the commission of an offence.

Laws such as NDPS brought in 1985 in imitation of and under the pressure of the West create ‘victimless crimes’. Sadhus smoking charas and ganja on the banks of the Ganga in Haridwar and Rishikesh or in the Kumbh Mela, officially organised by the government, are a common sight.

However, NDPS under Section 2(iii) (a) defines cannabis (hemp) to mean charas and includes the “separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant”. Subsection (b) includes “ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant”. Sections 2(xv) to (xix) define the entire spectrum of opium, opium derivatives and poppy and bring it within the ambit of the Act. Sections 17 to 20 of the law proceeds to prescribe stringent punishments extendable to 10 and 20 years’ imprisonment with respect to use, possession, and sale, purchase of opium, charas and ganja.

Naga Sadhus or Hindu holy men take a dip during the first “Shahi Snan” (grand bath) at “Kumbh Mela” or the Pitcher Festival, in Prayagraj, India, January 15, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Danish Siddiqui

Mens rea or the criminal intention

NDPS dispenses with ‘intention’ to cause injury and Section 35 directs the court to presume the existence of a culpable mental state for all the offences under the Act. In law, if possession is to constitute an offence, it must mean conscious possession. For example, if a thing is put in the hand of a sleeping person A, then it cannot be said that A is in possession of it. Similarly, if something is slipped in the handbag of B, then B cannot be said to be in possession of it.

However, under NDPS, knowledge of the contents is imputed to the accused. Section 54 says that it is to be presumed that a person has committed an offence under the Act, if he fails to account satisfactorily for the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any other incriminating article.

Also read: The Demonisation of Cannabis Users Needs to Stop

Of decoys and entrapment

NDPS and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are the two legislations where the modus operandi of sending in decoy customers is employed by the police. It is no coincidence that these two laws have been singled out for the deployment of the methodology. It is the taint of the immoral associated with the offences under the laws and the accused persons being looked upon as the repositories of the all that is ‘bad’ in society, that makes using decoys a methodology acceptable to investigative agencies, the prosecution and the courts.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not contain any provision authorising sending in of decoys by the police as part of the investigative steps to be taken in finding out the perpetrators of an offence. The sending in of a person as decoy who offers money for the commission of an act which is an offence would fall within “entrapment”.

It is the conception, planning and execution by a police officer by trickery, persuasion and fraud to get a person to commit an offence. In the context of the offence of theft, enticing a person to burgle a house by offering money would amount to criminal conspiracy and abetment to the offence by the individual.

Denial of bail

The restrictions imposed on grant of bail under NDPS amount to virtual denial and ensure years of incarceration. Section 37(1) declares that an accused person is not to be released on bail unless the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. This provision is identical to provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 which resulted in long periods of incarceration and evoked strong criticism from the human rights movement.

Rhea Chakraborty and her brother Showik. Photo: PTI

The provisions of NDPS possibly due to the ‘sinful immorality’ associated have remained unnoticed on the statute books even by the civil liberties movement. The concomitant requirement of speedy disposal of cases under NDPS to offset the curtailment of liberty by denial of bail to the undertrial, remains a chimera in our clogged justice delivery system.

Also read: Strange and Arbitrary Bail Orders: Are Indian Judges Going Too Far?

Victimless crimes

The possession or recreational use of psychotropic substances lacks the primary ingredient of the intention to harm and the causing of injury to the other. There is no ‘victim’ of the crime. The acts are statutorily created offences under the NDPS and are victimless crimes. The acts can at best fall within the category of vices. At the worst, they can be said to be acts by which a person harms himself or herself.

The premise of making these acts an offence comes from the thirteenth century Latin phrase ‘non compos mentis’ in English law. ‘Compos mentis’ meaning ‘having control of one’s mind’ and prefixing ‘non’ translates into ‘not having control of one’s mind’. The individuals are to be treated as infirm and incapable: the State steps in as a moral guardian to protect them.

That those who practice vices are mentally infirm and need to be protected from self-destruction by incarceration leading to the likely ruin of their lives, appears to be a dubious proposition. Criminalising vices is a pandora’s box with an endless stream emerging in the arena. Acts with the criteria of injury and harm to others as a fulcrum are relatively easier to categorise and agree upon as crimes.

Intrinsically, the qualities, behaviour and acts which are to be categorised as vices are in the realm of the subjective with little possibility of agreement. Greed, avarice, hypocrisy, gluttony and acts like drunkenness, smoking and prizefighting – may all fall within the category of vices.  The makeover of vices as offences to be taken cognisance of by law would end up with most of the human population in prison.

Actors Deepika Padukone, Shraddha Kapoor and Sara Ali Khan. Photos: Official Twitter accounts

Under the blanket of drug menace to society, the draconian nature of NDPS has received little critical attention. In the case of a second conviction, even for offences in the nature of abetment or attempt to commit an offence, section 31A of NDPS earlier prescribed mandatory death sentence. In a fortunate turn of events, an amendment in 2014 to the Act leaves room for the court to impose the alternative of enhanced sentence, as an alternative to death penalty, for a second offence.

The legislation with unduly harsh punishments, use of decoys, denial of bail, presumption with regard to intention and knowledge, leads virtually to the burden-of-proof being placed on the accused to establish innocence and needs to be reviewed.

In the context of criminalising vices, about a century and a quarter ago, Lysander Spooner in Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty argued that government should protect its citizens against crime, but that it is foolish, unjust, and tyrannical to legislate against vice. The larger jurisprudential question whether the state should criminalize vices and the assumption that those who practice vices like recreational drug use are mentally infirm and need to be protected from self-destruction by imprisonment needs to be opened up for debate.

Rakesh Shukla is an advocate and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death Is Why India Needs a Coroner’s Court

Right now, there is little by way of legality to prevent gross misconduct in investigations into deaths by suicide.

Suicides in India have always led to administrative chaos.

The very soul of the deceased is often reduced to a legal squabble with FIRs being filed on a whim, very often driven by the frustration of the family due to a lack of professionalism and transparency by the authorities.

If – as has happened with Sushant Singh Rajput most recently but also Jiah Khan and Divya Bharati and others in the past – the deceased is well known, then the investigation gets escalated to the Supreme Court and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for what should be a routine police matter. The sum of this ends up becoming rich material for TRP vultures, immense emotional and financial distress for already bereaved families and embarrassment for a nation attempting to position itself as a global leader.

Notably, it is not confirmed yet whether Rajput died by suicide.

Sushant Singh Rajput. Photo: Twitter/@itsSSR

The root cause in this instance is the Iron Age ‘Code of Criminal Procedure’ (CRPC), specifically Section 174. In rather ambiguous language, which – quite rightly – leads to various interpretations, it says the police “…in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death…”.

Twenty-first century India does not require the deployment of forensics teams to collect evidence, or specialist forensic medical examiners to carry out an autopsy or professional detectives to investigate. Section 174 finds no use for the glamorous IPS either; state-level inspectors or sub-inspectors are tasked with being investigators for all matters while being specialists in none.

Instead, the body is handed over to a government hospital where an ‘autopsy surgeon’ will carry out the postmortem. Autopsy surgeons, in general, are neither trained nor qualified as criminal specialists, leaving them vulnerable to miss signs of criminal enterprise.

In many cases, especially for names that do no attract media frenzy, the autopsy surgeon exists in signature only, with ‘doms’ stupefied by alcohol being left to butcher the body as they see fit and dispatch it for cremation so all evidence is incinerated. The collection of samples from the body and video recording of the autopsy are aspirations yet to be attained as a matter of routine.

Also read: Judge Loya Post-Mortem Allegedly Manipulated by Doctor Related to BJP Minister

A ‘coroner’s court’ would solve most of these issues.

In the UK, a coroner need not be a medical professional; experienced solicitors and barristers are often appointed for the role, albeit overseen at a national level by a senior, sitting judge. Coroners have their own staff like former police personnel, or medical professionals and even lawyers where needed, along with sweeping powers including the authority to issue arrest warrants, summon anyone to give evidence – with the associated perjury caveat – subpoena whatever they require. In the event the death has been while in government custody or care, to maintain their integrity, a coroner will call a jury to deliberate on the evidence presented.

In the UK, a coroner need not be a medical professional. He or she enjoys complete autonomy. Photo: www.gov.uk

A coroner’s role is to establish the cause of death, not to assign responsibility or blame. The matter is handed over either to the police, the health and safety executive, Crown Prosecution Service or even to provide results for civil and insurance claims.

In the rural districts of India, monitoring is much tighter. In the event of an unnatural death, a magistrate, usually the circle officer, is appointed to oversee an autopsy which must be video recorded while the district civil surgeon will constitute a medical board to investigate the cause.

Districts, due to their cosy nature where people know each other, are easier to manage in this regard. Large cities are prone to high numbers of sudden deaths where, coupled with low quality and low numbers of medical staff, circumventing of already weak processes is the norm.

Also read: The Curious Case of the Bihar Top Cop in the Limelight Since Actor Sushant’s Death

Phiroze Edulji, a renowned lawyer at the Calcutta high court said, “The system needs a complete overhaul. Every postmortem must be video recorded, and the video and the postmortem report should be handed over to the victim’s family immediately. Right now, families are forced to make legal applications to the courts to get a copy of the same which should be theirs by default.”

Other vulnerabilities in the Indian system include the absence of routine collection of samples from all deaths, which will have critical evidentiary value for a later review, considering that many are Hindus headed for the cremation pyre.

More often than not, families enraged at the death of a loved one often lose momentum when faced with the option of having the body subjected to a postmortem. Their appetite to fight being diminished by the perceived butchery that their loved ones are destined for, they withdraw their protest and allow an inconclusive burial.

An independent coroner’s court is needed to standardise the investigation of all deaths across the country. Postmortems may not be necessary for all, but an impartial and proficient investigation to ascertain the cause is a must. The state coroner must avoid all political interference, perhaps answering only to the Chief Justice of the high court in each state.

As with the UK model, medical professionals of all ranks, lawyers, investigators and statutory powers are required to add both professionalism, integrity and operational independence to the office, as every citizen has a right to dignity even after death.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Anthony Khatchaturian works as a historian and opinion writer, and has spent ten years with the Metropolitan Police Service (Scotland Yard), London. He is based in London and Kolkata.

Targeted Attacks on Aaditya Thackeray Over Actor’s Death Serve a Political Purpose

A relative newcomer in politics, the Shiv Sena scion is being primed for leadership role. He has also been candid about connections with the film industry.

Mumbai: The untimely death of the 34-year-old Hindi film actor Sushant Singh Rajput, instead of being investigated in a routine manner, has unleashed hatred, petty political rivalry and even an interstate fight between two state police departments who seem keen on one-upmanship.

Rajput’s death, which initially was thought to have been caused by suicide – it was reported that the circumstances around his death suggested so – in later weeks became a case of alleged abetment. His girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, also an actor, has been named as a prime accused in the FIR registered by the CBI.

But behind the murky goings on, the bigger target in all the efforts to apparently get at the truth, seems to be the Maharashtra government, and specifically the Shiv Sena. Initially, the attacks seemed to be aimed at showing the government as incompetent, but that soon became about an effort to ‘hide’ something.

The clamour for handing over the case, first to the Bihar police, which came for its investigations and then to the CBI by the centre, were all part of that. Now, the focus seems to be the tourism and environment minister Aaditya Thackeray, son of the chief minister.

Also read: Once Upon a Time in Bollywood: The Death of Sushant Singh Rajput

Much of this campaign is being done clandestinely, with the help of WhatsApp media forwards, on Twitter, and even through questions on Quora, that purportedly give explicit details of how exactly he may be involved in the matter. Now, the Shiv Sena, acknowledging the innuendo-filled rumours has come out with a counter attack calling it a conspiracy to defame the young politician. Young Thackeray himself is calling it ‘dirty’ politics. 

Thackeray, who has been open about his friendly associations with many in the Hindi film industry, has claimed that the attacks on him are part of a larger political conspiracy to target his family and the three-party Maharashtra government – a move that will help BJP in Bihar during the upcoming elections.

Also read: Gloves for Voters, Last Hour for COVID-19 Patients: EC Issues Guidelines for Polls During Pandemic

“Mud-slinging is being indulged in against me and the Thackeray family for no reason in connection with Sushant’s suicide. This is a kind of political stomach ache is stemming from frustration. It is a blot on humanity to seek mileage out of someone’s death. In fact, I am nowhere related to this episode,” he told the press, a few days ago.

Chakraborty’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde has also rubbished the allegations and said, “She has not spoken to him telephonically or otherwise, though she has heard of him as a leader of the Shiv Sena.”

Why target Aaditya Thackeray, who is a relative newcomer to politics?

The answer lies in who he is and his rising profile. Though a first-time MLA and minister, Aaditya Thackeray is one of the most visible political leaders in the state. He is seen in every important meeting, and it is obvious, especially to his own party seniors, that he is being groomed to be positioned as the next natural heir of the party. Hitting him directly will not just hurt his party, but also undermine him.

“The opposition expected our government (the Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress government in the state) to crumble in no time. That did not happen. Instead Uddhav ji has positioned himself as a mass leader and has been appreciated for his work in the past months. So, when you can’t take the leader down for his work, you find other ways to get at him. Attacking Aaditya [Thackeray] is a part of that other conspiracy,” a senior party leader said off the record.   

The initial investigation in Rajput’s death was handled by the Mumbai police but a few weeks later, Bihar police – on a complaint by Rajput’s family in Bihar – had entered the scene. An FIR was registered in Bihar, which both Maharashtra government and Mumbai police had challenged, claiming that it is an overreach on the part of Bihar government. From Patna, Rajput’s family and relatives made several statements alleging foul play in his death and television channels were only too happy to report them and speculate in the most gory and lurid way, virtually alleging, as the family had done, that Rhea Chakraborty was involved in the death.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput Death: Should Not Be Made Scapegoat of Political Agendas, Rhea Tells SC

Chakraborty moved the apex court challenging Bihar police’s involvement and within no time CBI was engaged in the case. Now the Supreme Court has given the CBI a go ahead and an FIR for abetment to suicide has been registered. News reports suggest that the central agency has now formed five different teams to expedite investigation in the case. 

All this was done to show the state government in a negative light, Sena’s member of parliament Sanjay Raut claims. Further accusing politicians of maligning the state government and the Mumbai police, he added, “The city police had probed the case in all fairness. Doubting the integrity of Mumbai Police was a conspiracy.

Also read: The Curious Case of the Bihar Top Cop in the Limelight Since Actor Sushant’s Death

Initially, the Sena was nonplussed at the rapidly moving events, but has since managed to hold its own.

With the case now being with the CBI, the matter is out of the Maharashtra government’s hands, and it is now clear that the issue will continue to be in the news for some time to come.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Supreme Court Approves CBI Inquiry Into Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Rajput’s father, said that they had “no faith” in Maharashtra Police in probing the matter.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the transfer of an FIR lodged at Patna against actor Rhea Chakraborty and others for allegedly abetting the reported suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The apex court said that the Bihar government is competent to transfer the case to the CBI for investigation.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy said that FIR registered by the Bihar Police on the complaint of Rajput’s father Krishna Kishore Singh is correct and the reference to the CBI is lawful.

The top court delivered its verdict on a plea by Chakraborty who had sought transfer of the FIR lodged against her at Patna to Mumbai.

Rajput, 34, was found hanging from the ceiling of his apartment in suburban Bandra in Mumbai on June 14, and since then, Mumbai Police has been probing the case keeping in mind various angles.

Also read: Once Upon a Time in Bollywood: The Death of Sushant Singh Rajput

The Centre had earlier informed the top court that it has accepted the recommendation of the Bihar government for a CBI probe into the FIR lodged at Patna by Rajput’s father, who has accused Chakraborty and six others of various offences including abetment of suicide.

While pronouncing the verdict, the bench said that if any other case is registered regarding Rajput’s death, the same shall be probed by the CBI only.

It said that the jurisdiction of Mumbai Police, which is conducting a probe under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the procedure to be followed in cases of unnatural death and suicide, is limited.

The apex court held that the ongoing investigation done by the CBI is lawful.

Also read: Centre Accepts Need for CBI Probe Into Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death

The top court, which had reserved its judgement on the plea on August 11, was told by the Bihar government that political clout has not allowed Mumbai Police to even register an FIR in Rajput’s case.

The Maharashtra government had argued that Bihar completely lacks jurisdiction in the matter.

Chakraborty’s counsel had told the bench that the probe by Mumbai Police has “proceeded quite substantially” as it has recorded statements of 56 persons in the case.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Rajput’s father, had countered the submissions advanced by Chakraborty’s counsel and said that they have “no faith” in Maharashtra Police.

Chakraborty’s lawyer had argued that FIR lodged by Rajput’s father has absolutely no connection with any offence in Patna and there was a considerable delay of around 38 days in its lodging.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the only FIR lodged in the case was in Bihar and the Enforcement Directorate has also started its separate probe in the matter.

The FIR in Patna was registered by Singh against Chakraborty and others for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 306 (abetment of suicide), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 380 (theft in dwelling house), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property).

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Centre Accepts Need for CBI Probe Into Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the Bihar government’s recommendation for CBI investigation in the case has been accepted.

New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it has accepted the Bihar government’s recommendation for CBI investigation into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that the truth behind the actor’s death should come out.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the Bihar government’s recommendation for CBI investigation in the case has been accepted.

The top court is hearing a plea by Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty who is seeking transfer of an FIR, accusing her of abetting the suicide of Rajput, from Patna to Mumbai.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput Death: SC to Hear Rhea Chakraborty’s Plea on August 5

Rajput, aged 34, died in his house at suburban Bandra in Mumbai on June 14 and since then the Mumbai police have been probing the case.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Sushant Singh Rajput Death: SC to Hear Rhea Chakraborty’s Plea on August 5

On July 25, Rajput’s father had lodged an FIR at Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna against Chakraborty and six others, including her family members, accusing them of abetting the actor’s suicide.

New Delhi: On August 5, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea filed by actress Rhea Chakraborty who has sought transfer of an FIR, lodged against her in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, from Patna to Mumbai.

As per the cause list uploaded on the apex court’s website, the transfer petition filed by Chakraborty will come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy on Wednesday.

Governments of Bihar and Maharashtra have already filed a caveat in the top court seeking to be heard before any order is passed on Chakraborty’s plea in which she has sought transfer of the FIR, lodged against her and others for the alleged offence of abetment of suicide, from Patna to Mumbai.

Krishna Kishore Singh, the father of the late actor, has also filed a caveat in the apex court in the matter.

A caveat is a pre-emptive legal measure taken to ensure that a party does not get any favourable order without a notice or a hearing accorded to the opponent.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput Death: ED Files PMLA Case Against Rhea, Family; Probe Takes Political Turn

On July 25, Rajput’s father had lodged an FIR at Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna against Chakraborty and six others, including her family members, accusing them of abetting the actor’s reported suicide.

In her plea filed in the apex court, Chakraborty has alleged that Rajput’s father has used his “influence” in lodging the FIR against her.

The actor said in her plea that she was in a live-in relationship with Rajput and has been in deep trauma due to the death of the actor and has also been moreover getting rape and death threats.

“It is pertinent to mention that the deceased and petitioner were in a live-in relationship since a year up till June 8, 2020, when the petitioner had temporarily shifted to her own residence in Mumbai,” she said in her plea.

She has said in her plea that it becomes abundantly clear that the commencement of investigation in Patna is erroneous in absence of any cause of action having arisen at Patna.

The entire cause of action as alleged in the FIR had arisen at Bandra in Mumbai, her plea has said.

An FIR has been registered against her and others at Patna for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 306 [abetment of suicide], 341 [punishment for wrongful restraint], 342 [punishment for wrongful confinement], 380 [theft in dwelling house], 406 [punishment for criminal breach of trust] and 420 [cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property].

On July 30, the top court had junked a separate plea, filed by Alka Priya, seeking the transfer of Rajput’s death case from the Mumbai Police to the CBI. This will come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy on Wednesday.

Rajput, aged 34, died his apartment in suburban Bandra in Mumbai on June 14 and since then the Mumbai Police has been probing the case keeping in mind various angles.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Aaj Tak ‘Regrets’, ABP News Denies, Zee News Mum on NHRC Rap Over Coverage of Actor’s Death

As it happens, there is no overarching framework of rules to prevent news channels from airing untruths and indulging in sensationalism even over sensitive subjects.

Note: This article contains mentions of suicide.

On June 18, the National Human Rights Commission, after hearing my complaint alleging sensationalisation in the coverage of Bollywood star Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, ordered the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take ‘appropriate action’ within eight weeks on the matter.

The complaint alleged that deaths of famous people, like that of Rajput’s, are “dramatised and glamourised” in an “abhorrent, shameful and insensitive” manner. It specifically pointed out some examples of news coverage by prominent Hindi news channels Aaj Tak, Zee News and ABP News that were clearly objectionable to many.

“Aise kaise hit wicket hogaye Sushant?” (Aaj Tak), and “Patna ka Sushant, Mumbai me fail kyu?” (Zee News) were some of the examples that were highlighted in the complaint.

While alleging that no guidelines, whether of the World Health Organization or of the Press Council of India to cover such sensitive cases were followed, the complaint specifically prayed that such guidelines be issued by the Commission for all media houses to stick to.

Also watch | Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death on India’s TV Channels

“This will ensure dignity to the dead, safeguard the victim’s family members and ensure such sensationalisation does not happen in future,” it argued.

However, the NHRC fell short of passing any such guidelines and shifted the responsibility to the government.

Ministry asks NBSA to act within 4 weeks

In a letter marked “Most Immediate” on June 26, the ministry wrote to the Secretary General of News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), Annie Joseph, informing her of the complaint and the order of the NHRC and instructed her to take “further necessary action” on the complaint within four weeks “under intimation to this Ministry”.

For those who do not know about the NBSA, it is an independent nine-member body set up by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) for the regulation of the 24×7 news channels that are part of the NBA. It functions both as a watchdog and grievance redressal body.

NBSA’s primary job is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints about broadcasts on member news channels. The body also issues guidelines for covering sensitive news from time to time. The NBSA is currently headed by former Supreme Court Justice A.K. Sikri.

Any person who finds any content on any of the member channels objectionable under the code of ethics and broadcasting standards can complain to the representatives of the news channels within seven days from the airing of the objectionable content.

There are fixed time frames within which member channels have to reply to complaints. In case of unsatisfactory response or no response, complainants can then complain to the NBSA after which suitable action could be taken against those channels.

After receiving this letter, NBSA wrote to Aaj Tak, Zee News and ABP News asking them for their response on the complaint within seven days.

Regrets and denials

Replying to the complaint, Aaj Tak’s compliance officer for NBSA Nasser Kabir wrote, “We deeply regret that any act of ours or our news channel has caused any concern to you.”

He still defended the channel’s coverage. On the use of the viral “hit wicket” banner, Aaj Tak said:

“…[T]he expression ‘hit wicket’ ordinarily is a cricketing term but has attained a colloquial meaning. It means a situation when a well-placed person commits a blunder and falters in his pursuit. Moreover, [l]ate Sushant Singh Rajput was very well regarded for his lead role in the [m]ovie named and styled as ‘M.S.Dhoni: The Untold Story’. Therefore, employing of terms, which has connection with cricket, is natural and obvious. We believe that the said term aptly justified the position we were in”.

The banner garnered widespread criticism on social media users and #ShameOnAajTak became the number one trend on Twitter that day.


On the charge of hounding Rajput’s family for a comment, Aaj Tak said its reporting was only to inform the public about the incident. “We have treated him with dignity and respect,” the reply read.

The channel however did not comment on another graphic it ran that gave details of the noose which was allegedly used by Rajput to hang himself. Giving such details specifically goes against WHO guidelines and guidelines adopted by the PCI.

ABP News, on the other hand, denied all allegations made in the complaint and said that they have not violated any principles of human dignity, human rights and guidelines of the PCI or WHO. “In fact, this being a celebrity suicide we had taken extra caution to report this in a careful manner,” the reply by Kishan Singh Rawat of the ABP News Network read.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Five Memorable Roles

Zee News has not yet replied to the complaint, despite repeated e-mails, thus violating the seven-day mandatory time-frame set for a response. The story will be updated if and when they reply.

But these three channels are not the only ones whose reportage was found insensitive and unethical. For example, TV9 Telugu went a step ahead and ran an uncensored photo of Rajput’s body that went viral on social media the same day he died, specifically pointing out marks on his neck. Some newspapers also were similarly insensitive. Gujarat Samachar, one of Gujarat’s oldest, published the same photo of Rajput’s dead body on its front page the very next day.

Notably, according to the Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide, a collaborative international organisation developed by leading experts in suicide prevention:

“More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals. This phenomenon is referred to as suicide contagion and the magnitude of the increase is related to the amount, duration and prominence of coverage”.

Channels keep violating ethical boundaries

This is not the first time that the Indian media has been criticised for lack of sensitivity and professionalism while covering high-profile sensitive cases. All ethics had gone for a toss during Bollywood actor Sridevi’s death. After it was found that the actress had allegedly died in a bathtub, Aaj Tak, while covering the story, ran a headline declaring “Maut ka bathtub” (‘Bathtub of death’) with a photo of a bathtub in the background.


TimesNow aired three possible theories on how the actor may have died, which included consumption of alcohol, loss of balance and drowning. Channels, notably, are explicitly told to resist from spreading conspiracy theories.  

How effective is the NBSA? 

If we go by the present case, Zee News has still not responded to the complaint, which shows its scant regard for authority. And this is not the first time that the NBSA has been undermined.

On November 9, 2019, the self-regulatory authority had ordered English news channel Republic TV to air an unconditional apology for previously undermining NBSA’s authority in a different ethical violations case. Not only did it not comply, but an alternate “self-regulatory” body named News Broadcasters Federation was formed with Republic editor Arnab Goswami as its head. The NBF has no website till date, where one can access the rules it follows for self-regulation.

Also read: What Happens When You Complain to a Broadcast Standards Authority about Republic TV?

While several topics are censored, regulation remains elusive. Due to the completely lawless manner in which most TV news channels run, ethical violations, privacy breaches, sensational spectacle of deaths, fake news and doctored videos have become rampant. And mostly they go unchecked and unpunished.

The NBSA’s usefulness in this regard is compromised due to four main reasons:

  1. NBSA’s code of ethics and broadcasting standards is limited to member news channels. This effectively means that out of the nearly 400 permitted satellite news channels in the country, NBSA can only adjudicate on matters relating to its 27 member broadcasters and their 77 channels.
  2. NBSA’s inability to attain a statutory status from the government for its code and redressal regulations, to be applicable on all TV news channels, has further slowed this fight against what would otherwise qualify as examples of yellow journalism. The Advertising Standards Council of India, a self-regulatory ad industry watchdog was able to get its code applicable on all advertisements in 2006 and since then it has helped contain misleading advertisements in the country.
  3. Unawareness seems to be another big reason why TV news channels get away with what they do. Many are unaware of the NBSA and its complaint redressal mechanism. An encouraging system like that devised by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, a self-regulatory body for non-news TV channels, which mandates all its member broadcasters to run a scroll making viewers aware of the complaint filing mechanism, should be put in place for news channels too.

Implementing these reforms in the existing self-regulatory regime would strengthen the system, ensure fair coverage of news stories, ethical conformity, higher standards and less yellow journalism, while also keeping the need for government interference at bay.

Saurav Das is an RTI activist and freelance journalist.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Is It Very Lonely at the Top? A Psychological Enquiry Into the Solitude of Fame

How mentally demanding is it to handle fame and constant attention? Is being famous always an experience to be cherished?

Asked to comment on his lifelong camaraderie with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the great Latin American author Gabriel Garcia Marquez once said that their friendship was a union between the solitude of power and the solitude of fame.

Why would a successful man, who had earned so much fame even before he reached 35, choose to end his life? It is the answer to this rather naïve question that the nation wants to know.

There are two problems here. A. It’s premature to try to answer it. And B. It’s somewhat undignified and even obscene to dig out personal and professional details of one’s life to make sense of one’s tragic death.

When the hurlyburly’s done, the question that we can ask, instead, is how celebrityhood and fame (often distinguished in terms of longevity; the former momentary, the latter long-lasting) affect a person psychologically. How mentally demanding is it to handle fame and constant attention? Is being famous always an experience to be cherished? The answer, my friend, is hidden in Garcia Marquez’s quip.

Human beings’ obsession with fame has been the subject of intense artistic and social scrutiny over the years. John Hinckley shot US President Ronald Reagan to be famous enough to impress actress Jodie Foster. How to handle fame, however, is a discourse that remains shrouded in opacity. This is primarily because the ones who attain fame naturally ceases to live a public life.

We only get a peek into their mental world when they open up about their ‘depression’. And that happens seldom, at least in India. In today’s world, the issue becomes more important than ever since anyone can attain fame in a matter of days, if not hours, thanks to reality shows and YouTube videos.

Handling fame is by no means an easy task. Donna Rockwell of the Michigan School of Professional Psychology, a well-known celebrity mental health expert, conducted a study speaking to 15 American celebrities in this regard, which she published in 2009 under the title Being a Celebrity: A Phenomenology of Fame.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Five Memorable Roles

Rockwell calls sudden fame an irreversible existential alteration, much like death. ‘Once a person has transitioned into fame, as in death, there is no turning back’. She sought to look into questions like – What was it like to be famous? How do individuals cope with fame? Is the loss of privacy a cherished experience? Etc.

The study unequivocally concluded that most celebrities found ‘themselves ill-equipped for and struggling with the deluge of attention that comes with fame… The individual is left to find his or her way through an unfamiliar labyrinth-like world. From an initial desire to become successful, the celebrity experiences personal confusion and a loss of ownership of life…’ Rockwell comments that such persons find themselves alone on the ‘island of recognition’ where “there’s a loneliness that happens because you are separate.” This, Garcia Marquez’s calls, the solitude of fame.

The study further finds that the constant glare of spotlight adversely affects the person’s relationship with immediate family, endangers his or her sense of safety and gradually gives birth to mistrust of everyone who adores him or her. Such a person often takes recourse to what Rockwell calls character-splitting, that is, he or she creates a public self and a true or private self. But inevitably, the latter succumbs to the former.

Bangalore-based psychologist Dr Ananya Sinha, assistant professor at Christ University, told The Wire, “Being famous and leading the life of a celebrity attracts public fascination and fantasy. It involves a tightrope walk between a need to experience one’s authentic self and not disappointing others as that might lead to the risk of losing his fame and celebrityhood. This chronic stress may be a risk factor to depression (although not a causal factor) among celebrities as their lifestyle makes them vulnerable to self-doubt, self-criticality and sensitivity to criticism. Social support is an antidote to depression, in the absence of which the risk factor increases. Depression is a medical condition, and can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe depression is often accompanied by suicidal thoughts and is best treated with a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.”

Satyajit Ray took up the issue of stardom, fame and its pitfalls in his 1966 masterpiece Nayak (The Hero).

“Ray was driven by a desire first to investigate the psychology of such a star, secondly the psychology of his adulators and detractors,” wrote Andrew Robinson in Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye. By casting Bengali cinema’s peerless superstar Uttam Kumar in the lead role, Ray gave the film an air of hyperreality. The central narrative is built around Arindam’s (the protagonist) account of his own career and its ups and downs to a young interviewer (Aditi, played by Sharmila Tagore), while he is on his way to New Delhi to receive a prestigious award.

Watch | Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death on India’s TV Channels

Aditi asks, “In the midst of having so much, don’t you feel there’s something missing in your life? Some emptiness somewhere?” Hesitant at first, Arindam soon finds comfort in her company, as he can come out of his superstar image and open up to her. In a series of cathartic conversations, Arindam brings up myriad issues that haunt him, and issues that he has nobody to share with – his leaving theatre for films, his alcoholism, his refusal to stand by an old friend to keep intact his stardom, his pettiness in settling scores with an old hapless colleague, and his affair with a married woman which led to an ugly fistfight with her husband.

The crowning glory of the film is a dream sequence, one of the best cinematic moments in Ray’s entire oeuvre, in which Arindam sees himself as drowning in a heap of notes. There are clear hints in the film at Arindam’s suicidal thoughts and also the fact that having a non-judgmental listener in Aditi enables the helpless superstar tide over those thoughts and stagger back to life, caught in the movie through the metaphor of a train journey.

In one of his most haunting poems, A Day Eight Years Ago, the great Bengali poet Jibanananda Das talks about an act of suicide and the indefinable vulnerabilities in the inner recesses of the self, far beyond the public eye, that may drive one to the act. Incidentally, Jibanananda’s death in 1954 in Calcutta in a tram car accident is deemed by many as suicide. In a moving passage in the above poem he wrote:

“A woman’s heart—love—a child—a home—these are not everything,
Not wealth nor fame nor creature comforts—
There is some other perilous wonder
Which frolics
In our very blood.
It exhausts us—
Fatigues, exhausts us.
That exhaustion is not present
In the morgue.
And so
In that morgue
Flat out he lies upon a table. “

(Translated by Clinton B Seely)

Indradeep Bhattacharyya teaches literature and is a former journalist based in Kolkata.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers (www.spif.in/seek-help/) they can call to speak in confidence. You could also refer them to the nearest hospital.