Nana Patekar laughs off Tanushree’s harassment claim

Agencies
September 28, 2018

Mumbai, Sept 28: The debate over what is being seen as Bollywood’s #MeToo moment snowballed on Thursday as Tanushree Dutta reiterated her claim that Nana Patekar had harassed her on the sets of a film in 2008 and the veteran actor laughed off her allegation, asking what he could do about it.

A day after Dutta reopened the window on the 10-year-old incident and specifically named Patekar, there was a furious discussion on social media platforms and other media outlets but the film industry itself was mostly silent.

Patekar dismissed Dutta’s claim that he had misbehaved with her on the sets of Horn Ok Pleassss in 2008.

In a telephonic conversation with Mirror Now, the 67-year-old actor said he would see if he could take any legal step.

“What can I do about it? Tell me? How would I know?” he asked with a laugh. “What does she mean by sexual harassment? There are 50-100 people on the sets with me. Will see what I can do legally,” Patekar can be heard saying in Marathi in the audio available on the channel’s official Twitter account. Such behaviour, he added, could not have gone unnoticed in a film set with “50-100” people.

Rakesh Sarang, director of Horn Ok Pleassss, backed Patekar. “She misunderstood the enthusiasm of Mr Patekar. There were so many people on the sets. If somebody wanted to do it, why do it in front of everyone?” Sarang told PTI.

Dutta, who said she had spoken about her ordeal in 2008 as well, described Patekar’s response as a “fear and intimidation tactic.” Patekar was “repeating the mistake” that got him into trouble, she said.

“I don’t even consider him worth commenting on... Dismissing a woman’s claim, dismissing her completely. It is fear and intimidation tactic. This attitude to laugh it off, I think he will face a severe backlash. I can see through everything he is trying to do. That is sad,” the actor, who is now based in the US, told PTI.

Asked about the issue that was trending on social media and was the subject of many discussions all over, Bollywood stars Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan evaded a direct answer.

Asked about the evasive reaction, Dutta said she was going to give them time and was hopeful that “people would do the right thing“.

“They are exposing themselves. This is the response of those who talk about women’s empowerment and support the #MeToo movement happening in America... and when that is happening here, this is how they respond,” she said.

She said she was coming from a compassionate space and was not going to jump to conclusions. “Some humanity will rise and they will say or do something about it. I am still hopeful that people will do the right thing,” the actor said.

When Dutta had raised the issue in 2008, Patekar had denied the claims.

Recounting the incident and its aftermath, she said she had tried to escape but the situation went from being a “harassment situation to a mob lynching situation.”

“When I tried to escape they called the media, they called some people to mob lynch and attack my car. My parents were there inside and even I was inside, it was horrific...They made sure that we did not escape from the studio, they locked the gates and then the cops came and they got us out... So when we filed the police report, they filed a counter complaint and because of the counter FIR, my dad, hair dresser and spot boy had to go through so much harassment over the next couple of years,” she recounted.

Dutta’s allegations have triggered a furious debate on sexual harassment in the Hindi film industry with many supporting her but others questioning her motives for raising the issue so many years later.

The actor, who has featured in films such as Aashiq Banaya Aapne and Chocolate: Deep Dark Secrets, said she spoke about the issue earlier and no one had the right to say anything to her.

“They called me a slut, an unprofessional.. when I spoke about it eight to ten years back. Nobody has right to say anything to me,” Dutta said.

PTI reached out to Patekar for a comment but there was no response.

Comments

Naresh
 - 
Friday, 28 Sep 2018

She was almost raped by emran hashmi in film and now talking about harassment 

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.
Agencies
August 8,2020

Kozhikode, Aug 8: The death toll in Kozhikode air crash is likely to rise as the condition of 22 injured passengers is said to be extremely critical. A total of 149 injured passengers have been admitted to hospitals in Malappuram and Kozhikode districts. 22 others have been discharged after first aid, says K Gopalakrishnan, Malappuram Collector

Deceased passengers:
Mohammed Riyas VP, 24 years - Palakkad, 
Saheer Sayed, 38 years -Malappuram, 
Lailabi KV, 51 years -Malappuram, 
Rajeevan Cherikka Parambil, 61 years - Kozhikode, 
Manal Ahamed, 25 years - Kozhikode, 
Sharafudheen, 35 years - Kozhikode, 
Janaky Kunnoth, 55 years - Kozhikode, 
Azam Muhammed Chembayi ,1 year - Kozhikode, 
Santha Marakkat, 59 years - Malappuram, 
Sudheer Vaariyath, 45 years -Malappuram, 
Sheza Fathima, 2 years -Malappuram, 
Remya Muraleedharan, 32 years - Kozhikode
Aysha Dua, 2 years – Palakkad 
Shivathmika, 5 Years- Kozhikode
Zhenobia, 40 years – Kozhikode
Sahira Banu, 29 years - Kozhikode

Deceased crew:
Deepak Sathe (Pilot)
Akhilesh Kumar (Copilot)

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
May 10,2020

Mumbai, May 10: Nearly a month after recovering from the coronavirus, actor Zoa Morani says she has donated her blood plasma to do her bit in helping the patients currently suffering from the novel virus. The actor, who was quarantined and kept under medication in April, also urged those who have recovered from COVID-19 to donate their plasma.

"Donated my blood today for the Plasma therapy trials at Nair hospital. It was fascinating! Always a silver lining I suppose. The team there was so enthusiastic and careful. There was a general physician on standby just incase of emergency and the equipment brand new and safe (sic)," Zoa wrote on Instagram on Saturday.

She thanked the doctors for taking care of her and hoped patients benefit from the donation.

"All #Covid19 recovered people can be a part of this trial, to help others covid patients recover! I hope this works #IndiaFightsCorona. They even gave me a certificate and Rs 500. Wont lie, I felt super cool today (sic)," she added.

Zoa, along with her sister Shaza and father, producer Karim Morani had tested positive for coronavirus in April. All three were discharged from the hospital after testing negative last month.

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.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

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.