‘By P. Sarojini’
Mumbai (CWBN)_ The popular Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut and her sister Rangoli Chandel were summoned by Mumbai police on a sedition case. They were asked to appear for the investigation on October 26 and 27. The battle between Kangana Ranaut and Maharashtra’s ruling Shiv Sena started after she tweeted comparing Mumbai with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and said that she was ‘scared’ of living there. The FIR against them was registered last week following an order from the Mumbai Magistrate’s court.
After a petition from a Bollywood casting director and fitness trainer Munawwar Ali Sayyed, who accused the actress for defaming Bollywood and creating a communal divide through her tweets, the court said a thorough investigation by an expert should be done.
According to Sayyed’s lawyer, the complaint accused kangana for defaming Bollywood by calling it a “hub of nepotism”, “favoritism” etc through her tweets and television interviews for the last two months. “Her sister, too, has made objectionable comments on social media to spread communal tension between two religious groups,” he said.
Kangana Ranaut made comments on Sushant Singh Rajput case and alleged lawlessness in Mumbai after the SSR death case, which ended up in a quarrel with Maharashtra’s ruling Shiv Sena. The actress left the city and went back to her hometown Manali last month. In her tweet, she compared Mumbai city with Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and stated that she is scared to live in Mumbai. On a reply to her tweet, the Sena and NCP’s Anil Deshmukh suggested that she quit living there.
This issue was also fueled by the Mumbai civic authorities, which resulted in the demolition of Kangana Ranaut’s office in the posh Pali Hills area, citing 14 “violations”. However, Kangana secured a stay on the demolition and filed an INR 2 crore compensation claim. She said on her petition that the demolition was a direct result of her comments against the Maharashtra government.
Kangana’s lawyer Rizwan Siddiqui when asked about the court order said, “My client’s tweets are not used for spreading communal hatred. It spread due to several other reasons… There is a burden of proof on the complainant to show how the post spread communal hatred or who was affected by it. It cannot apply only by looking at the statement.”
