Go Back to Free Speech Tracker

Subjudice Cases

There are a number of on -going cases at various stages which haven’t reached a conclusion yet. These cases may be pending at various stages in different courts across the country, . This list aims to track cases which have not been decided yet. This list is not exhaustive, there are several cases that happen on an everyday basis and many are bound to be missed. Please report if you come across any such case by using the report link.

 

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : Section 293: Sale, etc., of obscene book, etc. to young person

Instant : Sreekumar vs The State Of Kerala, Bail Appl..No.116 OF 2020

Court/state/FIR details : Kerala High Court

Current status : The strict bail conditions were laid down which the accused had to abide by keeping in mind COVID social distancing norms. Meanwhile, the police would have to begin filing the FIR and conduct the investigation accordingly.
 

Brief Facts : The prosecution's case is that the accused committed sexual harassment against a minor boy aged 13 by showing pornographic videos to the child from his mobile phone.

Summary : The bail application was allowed, but under stringent conditions. A perusal of the statement of the victim made it clear that the offence could be proved only through oral evidence. For that purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required to be necessary.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137350186/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : Section 153B: Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration

Instant : Akhil Gogoi v. The State Of Assam, Case No. : Bail Appln. 930/2020

Court/state/FIR details : Gauhati High Court

Current status : The Court held that there are no tangible materials, as on date, in the case diary wherefrom prima facie inferences can be drawn that activities were undertaken by the petitioner in a subversive manner with some unlawful association and with the intention to promote enmity between different groups to cause disharmony or to disturb the national integration for the offences under Sections 153A/154B, IPC. A bandh called can be declared illegal and the participation of the petitioner in such bandh may also be illegal but such activity cannot ipso facto be considered to bring the activity of the petitioner within the purview of terrorist act and within the ambit of the offences under Sections 153A/153B, IPC.
 

Brief Facts : After the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) was re-introduced in the Parliament in December, 2019, a spontaneous movement against the Bill erupted again in the State of Assam where the petitioner in opposition of the said Bill, had participated in the agitation programmess which were organized by different organizations in different parts in the State, at the invitation of the people. When the petitioner was at Jorhat, participating in one such peaceful programme of protest, he was arrested on 12.12.2019 in connection with numerous cases under various provisions of IPC including Section 153B. The petitioner was being granted bail but the same was denied, so he filed a case for grant of bail again.

Summary : In the light of the discussion in the case, and in the fact situation obtaining in the case and also upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner was in custody for the last 52 days, the application stood allowed by the Court. Accordingly, it was provided that the petitioner shall be allowed to be released on bail.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17849404/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Instant : Pradeep R.S. v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl..No.3302 OF 2020

Court/state/FIR details : Kerala High Court

Current status : The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under S. 153A IPC. It is necessary that at least two groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract the provisions of S.153A IPC. In the case in hand, the comments made by the 8th accused in the Facebook is only with regard to the pride of A.H.P, or at best the Hindu community. The comments made by him refers only to the the Mahadeva temple and not permitting such activities of construction within the precincts of the temple. Therefore, prima facie, the offence punishable under S.153 A is not attracted to the facts of the case.
 

Brief Facts : The petitioner was accused of hatching a conspiracy to demolish a filmset depicting a Church and formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot and damaged the walls of the sanctum sanctorum of the Kalady Mahadeva Temple causing a loss of Rs.25,000/- thereby promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on the grounds of Religion.

Summary : Merely Inciting Feelings Of One Community Without Any Reference To Any Other Community Cannot Attract Section 153A IPC. Real intention to incite one group or community against another is absolutely essential.

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187996138/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 153-A- Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

Instant : FIR against an offending speech which contains innuendo against two religions.

Court/state/FIR details : Mohammed Shariff v. State of Karnataka & Anr. in Karnataka HC

Current status : Since the FIR has not been quashed, the case is to undergo a trial.
 

Brief Facts : The Court refused to quash a FIR registered against a National Committee Member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), while holding that even though the offending speech does not directly refer to two religions, "it attracts the provisions of Section 153 of the IPC, which is in the form of innuendo."

Summary : The Petitioner-accused had submitted that mere insulting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to other community or group cannot constitute an offence. The Bench held that "on close reading of the contents of the speech in the contents of the complaint, there are two religions. One is the Muslim community and another one has been indirectly in the form of innuendo, it has been stated with reference to the other religions."

Link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176641596/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Information Technology Act, 2000

Name of the provision : 67- Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

Instant : FIR registered against fake social media accounts trolling Mumbai police.

Court/state/FIR details : Mumbai, Maharashtra

Current status : An FIR was reportedly registered in October 2020.
 

Brief Facts : Mumbai Police registered FIR against fake social media accounts that trolled and defamed the Mumbai police in Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Summary : Several social media account holders trolled the Mumbai Police Commissioner on different platforms like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook and used abusive language against him and the force. Hence, an FIR was registered against those account holders under Section 67 of the IT Act. Most of these accounts are fake and DCP, Cyber Crime, Mumbai police said that they will be taking action against all those fake account holders.

Link : https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/firs-against-social-media-accounts-for-trolling-mumbai-police-commissioner/article32780196.ece
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 153 B- Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration

Instant : FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami alleging that the news debates led by him on the Palghar lynching incident in Maharashtra amounted to promotion of enmity between groups and creation of communal disharmony.

Court/state/FIR details : Supreme Court of India

Current status : The Supreme Court granted Three weeks protection from arrest to Arnab Goswami in the matter in April 2020.
 

Brief Facts : The FIRs were filed against Arnab Goswami alleging that the news debates led by him on the Palghar lynching incident in Maharashtra amounted to promotion of enmity between groups, creation of communal disharmony, promotion of feeling against national integration etc. The FIRs mentioned offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 500, 504, 505 etc of the Indian Penal Code.

Summary : FIRs were registered in States of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana and Jammu & Kashmir in response to the broadcasts made by Republic TV linking Congress to the Palghar incident. In the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief contended that the criminal actions resulted in the infringement of his fundamental right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, the State claimed that the petitioner is trying to ignite communal violence here by putting Hindus against minority and is creating communal violence.

Link : https://www.siasat.com/sc-grants-arnab-goswami-three-week-relieve-arrest-1878866/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Information Technology Act, 2000

Name of the provision : 67A- Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form

Instant : FIR lodged for sharing pornographic material on Whatsapp group.

Court/state/FIR details : Jharkhand

Current status : As on 5 July 2020, the concerned Court had denied bail to these persons despite recording the fact that the mobile phone used to create the alleged WhatsApp group has been recovered, their confessions have been recorded, and the statements of all the witnesses under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code have also been recorded.
 

Brief Facts : FIR was lodged against two boys aged 19 and 20 respectively, for allegedly sharing 'obscene remarks and materials' in a WhatsApp study group.

Summary : On May 14, a couple of teachers found out that the accused persons had created a WhatsApp group called 'Mia Khalifa' wherein they had added all the students as well as the teachers of the some other WhatsApp groups, which were created to share study material during lockdown. As per the prosecution, this new WhatsApp group was used to share 'obscene' remarks and materials with the members of the group, which included minor girls as well. The case diary states that, 'Students and teachers tried to restrain the two Petitioners for sending the obscene messages, but the Petitioners paid no heed'.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/arrested-for-sharing-porn-on-whatsapp-how-young-boys-in-jharkhand-are-languishing-in-prison-due-to-arbitrary-denial-of-bail-159387
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 120B- Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Instant : Arrest of Devangana Kalita

Court/state/FIR details : 1) FIR No. 250/19, U/s 147/148/149/153- A(II)/436/437/323/325/353 /186/188/120B/34 IPC & 3 PDPP Act, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi 2) FIR No. 59/20, U/s 120B r/w 124A/302/307/353/186/212/395/427/436/452/454/114/147/ 148/149/153A/34 IPC, 3/4 PDPP Act, 25/27 Arms Act & 17/18 UA (P) Act, P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. 3) FIR No. 50/2020 147/148/149/ 186/353/283/332/323/307/427/120B/34/188 IPC & SECTION 25, 27 Arms Act and sections 3/4 of Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act., P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi.

Current status : 1) FIR No. 250/19, she was granted bail by the Metropolitan Magstrate as the police failed to produce any concrete evidence connecting her to the violence that broke out in Daryaganj in Decemeber of 2019. 2)FIR No. 59/20, alleged that Devangana Kalita along with other accused persons hatched a conspiracy to instigate the violence in the form of riots and that the riots are preplanned, multi-layered and deep-rooted conspiracy. The Additional Sessions Judge of Kakardooma court denied her bail application on the grounds that the accusations against her were prima facie true in nature and that her actions have been corroborrated by the witnesses present during the riots. 3)FIR No. 50/20 , The Delhi High Court, on September 1 2020 granted bail to her on the grounds that the Delhi police failed to produce any substantial evidence to show that she delivered hate speech and also instigated certain cmmunity to commit acts of violence. The court held that though her presence is established at the place of riots, it was not proven that she instigated the riots and gave hate speech.She was only taking part in a peaceful demnstartion of protest which is a guaranteed right in the constitution of India.. The court further added that she will not be released from jail as she is yet to obtain bail in relation to FIRNo. 59/20. Devangana Kaita got bail in 3 FIRs out of 4. She was denied bail in the FIR No. 59/20 and hence is still in jail. FIR No. 59/20 also named activists such as Umar Khalid, Ishrat Jahan, Khalid Saifi, Safoora Zargar, and Gulfisha.
 

Brief Facts : Devangana Kalita, Pinjra Tod activist was arrested on May 23, 2020 in relation to the anti CAA protests and riots happened in Delhi during February 2020 and December 2019. A series of FIRs have been filed against her at different police stations in Delhi. All the three FIRs have alleged that she, intentionally instigated a particular community to indulge in violent rioting. She filed bail applications with respect to all the four FIRs against her.

Summary : -

Link : https://www.theleaflet.in/what-was-the-mysterious-conspiracy-of-delhi-police-against-devangana-kalita/
 

Read more

2020

 
 
Act : Information Technology Act, 2000

Name of the provision : 67B- Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form

Instant : BJP IT Cell coordinator circulating child porn content through social media arrested by police.

Court/state/FIR details : Alathur, Kerala

Current status : The accused was booked under IT Act 67 B and was remanded.
 

Brief Facts : Police arrested BJP IT Cell coordinator for circulating child porn content through social media. The accused is identified as Perungulam native Aswin Murali (28), BJP Alathur constituency IT Cell coordinator.

Summary : A police team nabbed the accussed following a raid under Operation P-hunt. Palakkad SP directed Alathur police to carry out the raid under Operation P-hunt to arrest people involved in circulating and watching child pornography. The police also seized the mobile phone which was used to circulate the child porn content.

Link : https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/crime-beat/bjp-activist-arrested-for-circulating-child-porn-content-through-social-media-1.5108520
 

Read more

2019

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 295-A 298 505 66 A

Instant : Case against Shashi Tharoor for his 'Hindu Pakistan' remark.

Court/state/FIR details : Metropolitan Magistrate of Kolkata

Current status : An arrest warrant was issued against the MP in August 2019.
 

Brief Facts : The case was filed by Advocate Sumeet Chowdhary under Section 153A/295A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 against Shashi Tharoor fo his 'Hindu Pakistan' remark.

Summary : The MP while addressing an event in his home-district said, "If they (BJP') win a repeat in the Lok Sabha, our democratic constitution as we understand it will not survive as they will have all the elements they need to tear apart the constitution of India and write a new one". He added, "..that new one will be the one which will enshrine principles of Hindu Rashtra, that will remove equality for minorities, that will create a Hindu Pakistan and that isn't what Mahatama Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and great heroes of freedom struggle fought for". The complainant alleged that Tharoor's remarks were an insult to India which is a secular nation and that the politician had even refused to apologise for his comment.

Link : https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arrest-warrant-against-shashi-tharoor-over-hindu-pakistan-remark/article29085457.ece
 

Read more

2019

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 298- Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.—Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places, any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with im­prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Instant : Re-enactment of Babri Masjid demolition by students at RSS leader' school.

Court/state/FIR details : Karnataka

Current status : 4 persons including RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat and members of the governing body of the school, were charged under Sections 295A and 298 of the IPC in Dec. 2019.
 

Brief Facts : A circulated video showed that students at Sri Rama Vidyakendra High School in Kalladka in Karnataka were made to re-enact Babri Masjid Demolition.

Summary : In a Karnataka school, allegedly owned by RSS leader Prabhakar Bhat, students were seen rushing towards a huge poster of the Babri Masjid while a narrator urges them to tear down the structure over a loudspeaker and says, “With enthusiasm, Hanuman bhakts with Hanuman’s anger, they bring down Babri structure. Bolo Shri Ramachandra ki, Jai!”. The students reportedly put up a ‘Ram Temple’ after tearing down the poster. The event was attended by Union minister and BJP MP Sadananda Gowda along with Puducherry governor and former cop Kiran Bedi.

Link : https://thewire.in/law/fir-against-rss-leader-for-babri-masjid-demolition-re-enactment-in-school
 

Read more

2019

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 505- Statements conducing to public mischief

Instant : A documentary of manual scavening, which talks about a particular community doing it, does not create enmity but is merely creating awareness.

Court/state/FIR details : Madras High Court

Current status : The FIR was quashed by the Madras HC.
 

Brief Facts : The complainant had been charged under Section 153A and 505(1)(b) of IPC r/w 66 F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for attempting to create a caste conflict and promoting enmity. It was alleged that documentary proceeded as if manual scavenging was done by a particular community called Thevendra Kula Vellalar, thereby defaming them.

Summary : It was alleged that the Petitioner, by way of her film, had attempted to create a caste conflict, in effect disturbing public tranquility. Resisting the FIR, Divya had submitted that the film was an attempt to spread awareness in order to completely abolish the practice of manual scavenging. The Court ruled that, ""… There is no allegation in the complaint to show that there is promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups or communities. The only reference made in this complaint is to one particular community. Therefore, even if an extreme case is taken, at the best, the allegations made in the complaint will only amount to defaming a particular community and nothing more. It is not known on what basis the respondent police registered the FIR for the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC." Moreover, it was added that, "In the considered view of this Court, the allegations made in the complaint does not make out a case under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC. In the first place, the documentary in question is intended to create an awareness among general public for abolition of manual scavenging. If in the documentary, any community has been named, it will not amount to an offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1)(b) of IPC."

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/cbi-director-is-the-accused-cbi-investigating-the-case-delhi-court-says-it-is-violation-of-principles-of-natural-justice-165993?infinitescroll=1
 

Read more

2019

 
 
Act : Information Technology Act, 2000

Name of the provision : 66 A-Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. -Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device

Instant : A meme offending the CM led to 14 days' judicial custody and a apology.

Court/state/FIR details : West Bengal

Current status : The State of WB has since filed a closure report in the Court of the concerned CJM conceding that in fact no criminal offence is made out against the accused and that the case be closed.
 

Brief Facts : Ms. Priyanka Sharma, a BJP Yuva Morcha leader in West Bengal was arrested for sharing a meme in which she transposed the face of the Chief Minister of West Bengal Ms. Mamta Banerjee onto the body of Ms. Priyanka Chopra at the Met Gala in New York, USA. FIR was reportedly lodged in the Cyber Cell of the Howrah City Police.

Summary : Ms. Priyanka Sharma, a BJP Yuva Morcha leader in West Bengal was arrested for sharing a meme in which she transposed the face of the Chief Minister of West Bengal Ms. Mamta Banerjee onto the body of Ms. Priyanka Chopra at the Met Gala in New York, USA. FIR was reportedly lodged in the Cyber Cell of the Howrah City Police. After arrest and upon production before the Magistrate, she was sent to 14 days' judicial custody. The cessation of legal representation in the state led to the accused approaching the SC by way of a habeas corpus writ petition. The Bench directed that the detenue be enlarged on bail immediately. However, the order also directed the accused to tender a written apology for sharing the meme. Media reported that the Court initially made the bail consequent upon the apology, only to later remove that condition and direct the apology to be made independent of the bail.

Link : https://www.livelaw.in/columns/mamta-banerjee-meme-what-for-did-the-sc-ask-priyanka-sharma-to-apologise-145069
 

Read more

2019

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 153A, 153B,505

Instant : Arrest of Dr. Kafeel Khan for his speech at Aligarh Muslim University

Court/state/FIR details : Case Crime No.-700/2019, Section 153A, 153B, 505(2), 109 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh

Current status : On 10th February 2020, Dr. Khan has been granted bail in reation to this case by the chief judicial mgistrate, Aligarh. Though he was granted bail by the CJM of Aligarh, the UP Govt invoked the National Security Act and the District Magistrate issued orders to extend his detention which later on was set aside by the Allaahabad High court by issuing a writ of habeas corpus in the petiton of Nuzhat Perween vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2020.
 

Brief Facts : This criminal case was filed against Dr. Kafeel Khan, a peditrician for his speech at the Aligarh Muslim University during the Anti-CAA protests in Decemeber 2019. On 12th December 2019, Dr. Khan and Dr. Yogendra Yadav addressed a gathering of 600 students in the Uniersity. The very next next day, at the instance of sub-inspector of Police, this criminal case was lodged against Dr. Khan. During the course of investigation, on 29th January 2020, he was arrested in Mumbai by the Special Task Force team Lucknow. He was then detained in Mathura ditrict jail. Dr. Khan presented a bail application before the Chief Judicial Mgistrate, Aligarh.

Summary : The enactment of CAA triggered wide range of protests through out the country. In the light of this, on 12 Decemeber 2019, Dr. Kafeel Khan and Dr. Yogendra Yadav adressed a gathering of about 600 students at the Baba Sayeed Gate of the Aligarh Muslim University. The police immediately lodged a criminal case against Dr. Khan under the section 153A of the IPC. The offences under the sections 153B and 505 were added to the same case later on. The allegations are, through his speech Dr. Khan provoked the religious sentiments of all the Muslim students present at the time and tried to incite hated enmty and disharmony against the other community. It was alleged that the speech by Dr. Kahn was a deliberate attempt to distort the public order in the dictrict of Aligarh. It was further alleged that post-the speech, on 13th December 2019, around 10,000 students from AMU attempted to march towards the Aligarh city but they were stopped by the Police, PAC and RAF forces. The allegatios presented also include that because of Dr. Khan's speech, the students of AMU, on 15th Decemeber 2019 ,attempted to break open the Baba-e-Syed gate of the University with an intention to march towards the city of Aligarh and when the police tried to tstope them, the students pelted stones at them and fired with an intention to kill. Due to this, there was a signififcant amount of public propoerty that was damaged.

Link : https://thewire.in/rights/kafeel-khan-arrest-cases-timeline
 

Read more

2018

 
 
Act : Indian Penal Code, 1860

Name of the provision : 120B- Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Instant : Arrest of Dr. Anand Teltumbde

Court/state/FIR details : FIR dated 08/01/2018 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune, vide C.R.No.4 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b), and 117 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

Current status : Dr. Anand Teltumbde is impisoned in a Mumbai prison. Other prominent civil rights activists such as Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Gautham Navlakha, Varavara Rao, Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Shoma Sen, and Rona Wilson were also arrested and charged under UAPA.
 

Brief Facts : Dr. Anand Teltumbde, civil rights activist and a senior professor at Goa Institute of management was arrested on April 14th, 2019 by the National Investigation Agency, in relation to the Elgar Parishad case. The FIR was lodged against him with the offences under the IPC along with UAPA charges which were added later on during the course of investigation by the Pune Police. It was alleged by the police that he associated with the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist), plotting the assassination of the Prime Minister of India, and of instigating violence that broke out in Bhima-Koregaon on 1 January 2018 during celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the Dalit victory over the Peshwas (upper caste rulers) in the Battle of Koregaon.

Summary : The FIR was filed on the basis of the version of one of the attendees of the Elgar Parishad that happened on 31 December 2017. It was an event to honor the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. The following day i.e 1 January 2018, tens of thousands of Dalits had gathered at the Bhima-Koregaon war memorial to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the historic victory of the British colonial army, which had a substantial Dalit contingent, over the Hindu upper-caste Peshwa community. The attendees were allegedly attacked by the upper caste groups, resulting in one death while several others were wounded. Two right wing activists were accused of inciting the violence and one of them was arrested and subsequently released on bail. The other was never questioned. The focus gradulally shifted toward the Elgar Parishad event happened the very before day. Pune police started investigating through that line and claimed that the event had maoist connections which was the main reason for the violence that broke out on the 1st of January 2018. It was alleged that during the coursee of investigation several names came out as part of a deep rooted conspiracy to overthrow the Indian Government. The Bombay High court declined to grant anticipatory bail to Dr. Teltumbde by holding that Section 43D(4) of UAPA Act excludes the applicability of section 438 CRPC. Thus, the applicability of Section 438 of CrPC is excluded by the aforesaid provision. The Supreme court bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah dismissed the challenege to the Bombay High court judgment and held the same as High court.

Link : https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/elgar-case-activist-teltumbde-arrested/articleshow/75148112.cms?from=mdr
 

Read more