The Evening Wrap: EC issues notices on complaints of poll code violations by PM Modi, Rahul

The Election Commission of India has issued notice to BJP President J.P. Nadda seeking the party’s response on complaints of violation of the Model Code of Conduct by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The ECI has asked the BJP to respond by April 29. A similar notice was issued to Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge over complaints made against Rahul Gandhi by the BJP. The letters from the EC to the two party presidents did not directly name either Modi, Gandhi or Kharge, but the representations received by it were attached to the respective letters and they contained details of allegations against the three leaders. The ECI has invoked Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act and held the party presidents responsible, as a first step, to rein in star campaigners. “Star Campaigners are expected to contribute to a higher quality of discourse by way of providing an all-India perspective, which sometimes gets distorted in the heat of the contests at the local level. Thus, the expectation from Star Campaigners is to provide corrective action or a sort of healing touch, when intensity of local campaign disrupts or inadvertently crosses over such boundaries,” wrote Senior Principal Secretary Narendra N. Butolia in the letter to Nadda. “The Star Campaigners are thus expected to utilise this privilege for “propagating the programme of the political parties” and, therefore, their speeches in the campaign space necessarily needs to be judged at a higher threshold of compliance,” it read. The ECI on April 23 said that it would examine the complaint made against the speech made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a rally in Rajasthan where he had said that if elected to power at the Centre, the Opposition Congress would distribute people’s property, land and gold among Muslims. The BJP, on the other hand, had written to EC that Rahul Gandhi levelled malafide and utterly sinister allegations against Modi during a speech in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. It also accused Kharge of violating the model code by claiming that he was not invited to the Ram temple consecration ceremony due to discrimination against SCs and STs. Arrest of ‘criminal’ politicians does not affect free and fair elections, ED tells SC in Kejriwal case Faced with accusations about the intent and timing of its arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Lok Sabha election, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on April 25 that arresting politicians who are “criminals” is not a blow against free and fair elections. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the rest of the Opposition have accused the ED of being a “political wing of the [ruling] BJP”. The AAP claimed that the real intention behind the arrest of Kejriwal on March 21 was to prevent him from campaigning for the ongoing general election. Politicians who are criminals cannot enjoy immunity from arrest merely because they are required to campaign in the election, the ED said in an 87-page affidavit. “Treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal in a matter of arrest would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of power of arrest which would violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the ED reasoned. The Central agency said that the arrest of Kejriwal was based on material evidence which indicated that the Chief Minister was guilty of money laundering. “A differential treatment in favour of a politician who is guilty of the offence of money laundering would violate the rule of law, which would be a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the ED noted. It added that an “arrest is part of investigation”. An investigation, including arrest, is a field exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. The AAP had reacted sharply to the ED affidavit, saying it proved that the Central agency had “become nothing but a machine for telling lies”. The party insisted that the ED did not have a shred of evidence against Kejriwal, and that there was no money trail linked to him. “After the first phase of the [Lok Sabha] polls, the BJP is gripped by fear,” the AAP had said. Dangerous to say private property can’t be taken over to subserve common good: Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, said the Constitution intended to bring about a “sense of social transformation” and it would be “dangerous” to say that the private property of an individual cannot be regarded as material resources of community and taken over by state authorities to subserve “common good”. The observations were made by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, examining whether privately-owned resources can be considered “material resources of the community”, when the counsel for parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai made vehement submissions that the private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the garb of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution. The Bench is considering the vexed legal question arising from the petitions whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). “It may be a little extreme to suggest that ‘material resources of the community’ only means public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take that view. Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)... therefore keep the hands off. It will be extremely dangerous as a proposition,” said the bench which also comprised justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. Referring to social and other prevalent situations in the 1950s when the Constitution was made, the Bench said, “The Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation and we cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once the property is privately held.” It said whether the Maharashtra law, empowering authorities to take over dilapidated buildings, was valid or not was a completely different issue and would be decided independently. The Bench asked can it be said Article 39 (b) will have no application once properties are privately held ones because the society demands welfare measures and there was a need for redistribution of wealth as well. The CJI referred to the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and the purely capitalist concept of property also and said it attributed a sense of “exclusiveness” to property.” “The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That’s the extreme socialist view,” the CJI said, adding that the DPSPs have their foundation in the Gandhian ethos. “And what is that ethos? Our ethos regards property as something which we hold in trust. We don’t go as far as to adopt the socialistic model that there is no private property... “But, you know, our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective,” Justice Chandrachud said. He said we regard property as something of holding in trust. “We hold the property because for the succeeding generations in the family, but broadly, we also hold that property in trust for the wider community. That’s the whole concept of sustainable development. “That property which we have today, as today’s generation, we hold in trust for the future of our society. That’s what you call an inter-generational equity,” the Bench said. It also observed that there was no need to distribute private properties, which have been considered as material resources of the community and gave the instance of nationalisation of private assets. “You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation. We shouldn’t therefore go that far to say that the moment private property is private property, the Article 39 (b) will have no application,” the CJI said. Deeply biased: MEA on U.S. report citing human rights violations in India India on April 25 described a U.S. State Department report citing alleged incidents of human rights violations including in Manipur as “deeply biased” and said it reflects a poor understanding of India and it attaches no value to it. The annual report of the State Department highlighted instances of human rights abuses in Manipur following the outbreak of ethnic conflict. “This report is deeply biased and reflects a poor understanding of India,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said. “We attach no value to it and urge you to do the same,” he said at his weekly media briefing. The report also mentioned the raids by Indian tax authorities on the office of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The India section of the report said local human rights organisations, minority political parties and affected communities criticised the country’s government for the delayed action to stop violence and provide humanitarian assistance in Manipur. According to the report, there were a number of press and civil society reports of representatives of political parties using disinformation tactics against civil society organisations, religious minorities, such as Sikhs and Muslims, and the political opposition, sometimes depicting them as security threats. Referring to the tax raids on BBC offices, the report said although tax authorities described the searches as motivated by irregularities in the BBC’s tax payments and ownership structure, officials also searched and seized equipment from journalists who were not involved in the organisation’s financial processes. “The government invoked emergency powers to ban screening of the documentary, forced media companies to remove links to the video, and detained student protesters who organised viewing parties,” the State Department alleged, referring to a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots, the screening of which was banned in India. Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape case: New York appeals court overturns conviction from landmark #MeToo trial New York’s highest court on April 25 overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case. “We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.” The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand. The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behaviour that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.” Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013. He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York. Weinstein’s lawyers argued Judge James Burke’s rulings in favour of the prosecution turned the trial into “1-800-GET-HARVEY.” The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction. Weinstein’s conviction stood for more than four years, heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February. Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse. Weinstein is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 160km northwest of Albany. He maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual. Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Judge Burke swayed the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to confront Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of brutish behaviour. Aidala argued the extra testimony went beyond the normally allowable details about motive, opportunity, intent or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he wasn’t charged with. Weinstein wanted to testify, but opted not to because Burke’s ruling would’ve meant answering questions about more than two-dozen alleged acts of misbehaviour dating back four decades, Aidala said. They included fighting with his movie producer brother, flipping over a table in anger and snapping at waiters and yelling at his assistants. “We had a defendant who was begging to tell his side of the story. It’s a he said, she said case, and he’s saying ‘that’s not how it happened. Let me tell you how I did it,’” Aidala argued. Instead, the jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s prior bad behaviour that “had nothing to do with truth and veracity. It was all ‘he’s a bad guy.’” Aidala also took issue with Burke’s refusal to remove a juror who had written a novel involving predatory older men, a topic the defence lawyer argued too closely resembled the issues in Weinstein’s case. Poll roundup: Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has written an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his campaign speeches against the Congress party’s ‘Nyay Patra’ for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. In a letter posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) by Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh on April 25, Kharge tells the PM that the Congress Nyay Patra aims to ‘provide Nyay to the youth, women, farmers, labourers and marginalised people’. Saying that he is willing to meet Modi to ‘explain’ the Nyay Patra to him, Kharge wrote that the Prime Minister is being misinformed by his advisors. Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra and J&K Apni Party’s Muhammad Ashraf Mir on Wednesday filed nomination papers for the Srinagar Lok Sabha seat, taking the number of candidates to 17. Parra, who was arrested in 2020 and jailed for 19 months under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), was accompanied by senior party leaders to file the nomination papers in Srinagar. “Our party will try its best to represent the sentiments of youth in the Parliament and will resist democratically. The PDP is the only party that raised peoples’ issues and reflected their pain after August 05, 2019 [when the Centre ended J&K’s special status]. When no political leader dared to speak up for their people. [PDP president] Mehbooba Mufti stood for them,” Parra said. In Brief:FSSAI in process of collecting pan-India samples of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals: CEO Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on April 25 said it is in the process of collecting pan-India samples of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals, amid a global report that claimed the Company was adding higher sugar content in the product. We are collecting samples [of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals] from across the country. It will take 15-20 days to complete the process,” FSSAI CEO G. Kamala Vardhana Rao said. The move comes following concerns about alleged high sugar content in Nestle’s baby food products expressed by both the Consumer Affairs Ministry and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) after taking note of a global report published by Swiss NGO Public Eye. CBI files first FIR in Sandeshkhali case The CBI has registered the first case in West Bengal’s Sandeshkhali related to the land grab and sexual assault allegations against five influential people there, officials said on April 25. The case pertains to a land dispute where women of the victim’s family had to allegedly face sexual assault from influential people in the area, they said. The CBI has not yet disclosed the identity of the five accused and the victims. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 25 April 2024 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Election Commission issues notice to BJP chief Nadda on complaints of model code violation by PM Modi The [Election Commission of India has issued notice to BJP President J.P. Nadda seeking the party’s response on complaints of violation of the Model Code of Conduct by Prime Minister Narendra Modi](. The ECI has asked the BJP to respond by April 29. A similar notice was issued to Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge over complaints made against Rahul Gandhi by the BJP. The letters from the EC to the two party presidents did not directly name either Modi, Gandhi or Kharge, but the representations received by it were attached to the respective letters and they contained details of allegations against the three leaders. The ECI has invoked Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act and held the party presidents responsible, as a first step, to rein in star campaigners. “Star Campaigners are expected to contribute to a higher quality of discourse by way of providing an all-India perspective, which sometimes gets distorted in the heat of the contests at the local level. Thus, the expectation from Star Campaigners is to provide corrective action or a sort of healing touch, when intensity of local campaign disrupts or inadvertently crosses over such boundaries,” wrote Senior Principal Secretary Narendra N. Butolia in the letter to Nadda. “The Star Campaigners are thus expected to utilise this privilege for “propagating the programme of the political parties” and, therefore, their speeches in the campaign space necessarily needs to be judged at a higher threshold of compliance,” it read. The ECI on April 23 said that it would examine the complaint made against the speech made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a rally in Rajasthan where he had said that if elected to power at the Centre, the Opposition Congress would distribute people’s property, land and gold among Muslims. The BJP, on the other hand, had written to EC that Rahul Gandhi levelled malafide and utterly sinister allegations against Modi during a speech in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. It also accused Kharge of violating the model code by claiming that he was not invited to the Ram temple consecration ceremony due to discrimination against SCs and STs. Arrest of ‘criminal’ politicians does not affect free and fair elections, ED tells SC in Kejriwal case Faced with accusations about the intent and timing of its arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Lok Sabha election, the [Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on April 25 that arresting politicians who are “criminals” is not a blow against free and fair elections](. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the rest of the Opposition have accused the ED of being a “political wing of the [ruling] BJP”. The AAP claimed that the real intention behind the arrest of Kejriwal on March 21 was to prevent him from campaigning for the ongoing general election. Politicians who are criminals cannot enjoy immunity from arrest merely because they are required to campaign in the election, the ED said in an 87-page affidavit. “Treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal in a matter of arrest would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of power of arrest which would violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the ED reasoned. The Central agency said that the arrest of Kejriwal was based on material evidence which indicated that the Chief Minister was guilty of money laundering. “A differential treatment in favour of a politician who is guilty of the offence of money laundering would violate the rule of law, which would be a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the ED noted. It added that an “arrest is part of investigation”. An investigation, including arrest, is a field exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. The AAP had reacted sharply to the ED affidavit, saying it proved that the Central agency had “become nothing but a machine for telling lies”. The party insisted that the ED did not have a shred of evidence against Kejriwal, and that there was no money trail linked to him. “After the first phase of the [Lok Sabha] polls, the BJP is gripped by fear,” the AAP had said. Dangerous to say private property can’t be taken over to subserve common good: Supreme Court [The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, said the Constitution intended to bring about a “sense of social transformation” and it would be “dangerous” to say that the private property of an individual cannot be regarded as material resources of community and taken over by state authorities to subserve “common good”.]( The observations were made by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, examining whether privately-owned resources can be considered “material resources of the community”, when the counsel for parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai made vehement submissions that the private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the garb of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution. The Bench is considering the vexed legal question arising from the petitions whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). “It may be a little extreme to suggest that ‘material resources of the community’ only means public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take that view. Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)... therefore keep the hands off. It will be extremely dangerous as a proposition,” said the bench which also comprised justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. Referring to social and other prevalent situations in the 1950s when the Constitution was made, the Bench said, “The Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation and we cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once the property is privately held.” It said whether the Maharashtra law, empowering authorities to take over dilapidated buildings, was valid or not was a completely different issue and would be decided independently. The Bench asked can it be said Article 39 (b) will have no application once properties are privately held ones because the society demands welfare measures and there was a need for redistribution of wealth as well. The CJI referred to the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and the purely capitalist concept of property also and said it attributed a sense of “exclusiveness” to property.” “The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That’s the extreme socialist view,” the CJI said, adding that the DPSPs have their foundation in the Gandhian ethos. “And what is that ethos? Our ethos regards property as something which we hold in trust. We don’t go as far as to adopt the socialistic model that there is no private property... “But, you know, our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective,” Justice Chandrachud said. He said we regard property as something of holding in trust. “We hold the property because for the succeeding generations in the family, but broadly, we also hold that property in trust for the wider community. That’s the whole concept of sustainable development. “That property which we have today, as today’s generation, we hold in trust for the future of our society. That’s what you call an inter-generational equity,” the Bench said. It also observed that there was no need to distribute private properties, which have been considered as material resources of the community and gave the instance of nationalisation of private assets. “You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation. We shouldn’t therefore go that far to say that the moment private property is private property, the Article 39 (b) will have no application,” the CJI said. Deeply biased: MEA on U.S. report citing human rights violations in India [India on April 25 described a U.S. State Department report citing alleged incidents of human rights violations including in Manipur as “deeply biased”]( and said it reflects a poor understanding of India and it attaches no value to it. The annual report of the State Department highlighted instances of human rights abuses in Manipur following the outbreak of ethnic conflict. “This report is deeply biased and reflects a poor understanding of India,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said. “We attach no value to it and urge you to do the same,” he said at his weekly media briefing. The report also mentioned the raids by Indian tax authorities on the office of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The India section of the report said local human rights organisations, minority political parties and affected communities criticised the country’s government for the delayed action to stop violence and provide humanitarian assistance in Manipur. According to the report, there were a number of press and civil society reports of representatives of political parties using disinformation tactics against civil society organisations, religious minorities, such as Sikhs and Muslims, and the political opposition, sometimes depicting them as security threats. Referring to the tax raids on BBC offices, the report said although tax authorities described the searches as motivated by irregularities in the BBC’s tax payments and ownership structure, officials also searched and seized equipment from journalists who were not involved in the organisation’s financial processes. “The government invoked emergency powers to ban screening of the documentary, forced media companies to remove links to the video, and detained student protesters who organised viewing parties,” the State Department alleged, referring to a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots, the screening of which was banned in India. Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape case: New York appeals court overturns conviction from landmark #MeToo trial [New York’s highest court on April 25 overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.]( “We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.” The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand. The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behaviour that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.” Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013. He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York. Weinstein’s lawyers argued Judge James Burke’s rulings in favour of the prosecution turned the trial into “1-800-GET-HARVEY.” The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction. Weinstein’s conviction stood for more than four years, heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February. Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse. Weinstein is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 160km northwest of Albany. He maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual. Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Judge Burke swayed the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to confront Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of brutish behaviour. Aidala argued the extra testimony went beyond the normally allowable details about motive, opportunity, intent or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he wasn’t charged with. Weinstein wanted to testify, but opted not to because Burke’s ruling would’ve meant answering questions about more than two-dozen alleged acts of misbehaviour dating back four decades, Aidala said. They included fighting with his movie producer brother, flipping over a table in anger and snapping at waiters and yelling at his assistants. “We had a defendant who was begging to tell his side of the story. It’s a he said, she said case, and he’s saying ‘that’s not how it happened. Let me tell you how I did it,’” Aidala argued. Instead, the jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s prior bad behaviour that “had nothing to do with truth and veracity. It was all ‘he’s a bad guy.’” Aidala also took issue with Burke’s refusal to remove a juror who had written a novel involving predatory older men, a topic the defence lawyer argued too closely resembled the issues in Weinstein’s case. Poll roundup: - [Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has written an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his campaign speeches against the Congress party’s ‘Nyay Patra’]( for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. In a letter posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) by Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh on April 25, Kharge tells the PM that the Congress Nyay Patra aims to ‘provide Nyay to the youth, women, farmers, labourers and marginalised people’. Saying that he is willing to meet Modi to ‘explain’ the Nyay Patra to him, Kharge wrote that the Prime Minister is being misinformed by his advisors. - [Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra and J&K Apni Party’s Muhammad Ashraf Mir on Wednesday filed nomination papers for the Srinagar Lok Sabha seat]( taking the number of candidates to 17. Parra, who was arrested in 2020 and jailed for 19 months under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), was accompanied by senior party leaders to file the nomination papers in Srinagar. “Our party will try its best to represent the sentiments of youth in the Parliament and will resist democratically. The PDP is the only party that raised peoples’ issues and reflected their pain after August 05, 2019 [when the Centre ended J&K’s special status]. When no political leader dared to speak up for their people. [PDP president] Mehbooba Mufti stood for them,” Parra said. In Brief: FSSAI in process of collecting pan-India samples of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals: CEO [Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on April 25 said it is in the process of collecting pan-India samples of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals]( amid a global report that claimed the Company was adding higher sugar content in the product. We are collecting samples [of Nestle’s Cerelac baby cereals] from across the country. It will take 15-20 days to complete the process,” FSSAI CEO G. Kamala Vardhana Rao said. The move comes following concerns about alleged high sugar content in Nestle’s baby food products expressed by both the Consumer Affairs Ministry and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) after taking note of a global report published by Swiss NGO Public Eye. CBI files first FIR in Sandeshkhali case The [CBI has registered the first case in West Bengal’s Sandeshkhali related to the land grab and sexual assault allegations]( against five influential people there, officials said on April 25. The case pertains to a land dispute where women of the victim’s family had to allegedly face sexual assault from influential people in the area, they said. The CBI has not yet disclosed the identity of the five accused and the victims. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[We will never feel the need to change the basic structure of the Constitution: Rajnath Singh] We will never feel the need to change the basic structure of the Constitution: Rajnath Singh]( [[ABC journalist chose to leave India despite being granted visa: Australian officials] ABC journalist chose to leave India despite being granted visa: Australian officials]( [[Watch | Indelible ink: when was it first used and where is it made?] Watch | Indelible ink: when was it first used and where is it made?]( [[CHESS | I think I’m ready for the challenge, says Gukesh on his upcoming clash with Ding] CHESS | I think I’m ready for the challenge, says Gukesh on his upcoming clash with Ding]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [click here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](