Kangana attacks Urmila for buying office after joining Sena; 'it's 'hard-earned money', responds Urmila

Agencies
January 3, 2021

fgd.jpg

Mumbai, Jan 3: Actor-politician Urmila Matondkar on Sunday said she has bought a new office with her "hard-earned money" after Kangana Ranaut took a dig at the purchase, linking it with her joining Shiv Sena.

Matondkar, who had contested the 2019 Lok Sabha election from North Mumbai constituency as a Congress candidate, joined the political party, led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, on December 1.

Ranaut took to Twitter and shared a screenshot of a report which claimed Matondkar bought the office for over Rs 3 crore, "weeks after joining Shiv Sena".

The "Queen" star claimed that Congress, Shiv Sena's ally in the state's coalition government, is trying to demolish her house and took a potshot at Matondkar for being "smart" enough to maintain good relations with her former political party.

"Dear @UrmilaMatondkar ji, the houses that I built from my hard-earned money are being demolished by Congress. By impressing BJP, I have only gotten 25-30 legal cases against me.

"I wish I was as smart as you and would've kept Congress happy. How foolish of me, no?" the 33-year-old actor tweeted.

Tagging Ranaut, Matondkar shared a video on Twitter and asked her to fix up a meeting where she would be present with all documents as fair proof.

"It has proof how I bought the flat in 2011 with my own hard-earned money after working for nearly 25-30 years. The document has papers of the sale of the flat in the first of week of March.

"It also has papers of how I bought the office with that money, which I had earned through my hard work. The flat that I had bought was way before I entered politics," she said in the video.

Matondkar, 46, also took a dig at the Y-plus category security given to Ranaut "against the money of crores of tax-paying citizens".

In September 2020, Ranaut was given Y-plus category security by the Ministry of Home Affairs amid controversy over her comment that she feared Mumbai Police.

Matondkar also asked the actor to present a list of people from the industry, who she had claimed were involved in drugs.

"You had promised them (the government) that you have names of several people you wish to give to the Narcotics Control Bureau to fight the drug menace. I request you to please bring that list. I'll be waiting for your answer," she added.

In September, Ranaut had called Matondkar a "soft porn star", after the latter criticised her claims about nepotism in the industry and Bollywood being riddled with a drug problem.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.