sparked

New Delhi, India – The Indian government tabled a new bill earlier this week in parliament under which a prime minister, state chief minister or other federal or state minister can be removed from office if they are facing criminal investigations – even before they are convicted.

The draft law proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) mandates the automatic removal of elected officials if they are detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

Even as Amit Shah, India’s home minister who is widely seen as Modi’s deputy, presented the bill in parliament, members of the opposition ripped apart legislative papers and hurled them at Shah, before the house was suspended amid chaos.

The opposition, strengthened in the 2024 national election in which the BJP lost its majority and was forced to turn to smaller allies to stay in power, has slammed the bill as an example of “undemocratic” weaponising of laws against dissent.

Meanwhile, the Indian government says the proposed law will rein in corrupt and criminal public representatives.

So, is the proposed law authoritarian or democratic? What’s behind the opposition’s allegations against the Modi government? Or, as some experts argue, is it all a trap?

What’s the bill proposing?

The Modi government tabled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, in parliament on Wednesday.

As per the amendment, an elected leader would automatically lose their post if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on charges carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

The bill also includes a provision for reappointment, allowing leaders to return to their posts if they secure bail or are acquitted.

The government argues that the measure is a step towards reinforcing accountability and public trust, arguing that those facing serious criminal charges should not continue in constitutional office.

The amendment has been referred to a joint parliamentary committee – a panel consisting of legislators from both the government and opposition parties – for its deliberations, following opposition protests.

What’s the opposition saying?

Opposition leaders have alleged that the proposed amendment could be misused by the Modi government against critics and political rivals.

That risk, they say, is especially high since law enforcement agencies that come under the federal government only need to arrest and press serious charges against opposition members, and keep them in custody for 30 days – without worrying about actually proving those charges in a court of law.

Manish Tewari, MP from the opposition Congress party, said that “the bill is against the principle of presumption of innocence” until proven guilty.

Asaduddin Owaisi, another opposition MP from Hyderabad city in southern India, said this law would be used to topple adversarial state governments.

Critics have also pointed to how, under India’s constitution, state governments have the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order. The proposed law, they say, upends that principle.

Applying this law to state leaders undermines India’s federal structure, he said, noting that this weakens the people’s right to choose governments.

“The bill would change the federal contract in fundamental ways, including balance of power between centre and states, giving the centre enormous leverage to sabotage elected governments – and, of course, to the space for oppositional politics,” said Asim Ali, a political observer based in New Delhi.

Are the opposition’s allegations founded?

Since 2014, when Modi came to power in New Delhi, the opposition has alleged that the government has increasingly used agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), tasked with fighting financial crimes, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the country’s premier investigative body, to target rival politicians.

In March 2023, opposition parties petitioned in India’s top court against “a clear pattern of using investigative agencies … to target, debilitate and in fact crush the entire political opposition and other vocal citizens”.

The petition noted that since 2014, 95 percent of cases taken up by the CBI and the ED have been against politicians from the opposition. That’s a 60 percentage point and 54 percentage point rise, respectively, from the days of the previous Congress-led government.

In parliament, 46 percent of current members face criminal cases, with 31 percent of them charged with serious crimes like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and crimes against women.

In the run-up to the 2024 general election, investigative agencies had arrested multiple opposition leaders, including Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy, Manish Sisodia. The ED also arrested Hemant Soren, just hours after he resigned as the chief minister of the eastern state of Jharkhand, on accusations of corruption.

In the last 12 years of BJP rule in India, at least 12 sitting opposition ministers have been detained and jailed for more than 30 days  – nine of them from Delhi and the eastern state of West Bengal.

Is this a distraction?

Some political observers and the Modi government’s critics say yes.

A constitutional amendment in India requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of the parliament, which the BJP and its allies lack.

Modi’s government currently survives with the support of the BJP’s alliance partners, after it fell short of a majority in the 2024 national election.

In recent weeks, the Modi government has faced mounting opposition criticism over a controversial revision of electoral rolls ahead of a crucial state election, allegations of vote theft, and heat over foreign policy challenges as India battles 50 percent tariffs from the United States under President Donald Trump.

It is against that backdrop that the bill – which Ali, the political observer, described as “authoritarian” yet “symbolic” in nature – is significant, say experts.

“Even if the bill does not become a law, it will anyway force a showdown to make opposition parties vote against the bill,” Ali said, “so that they can use that as ammunition against them in [election] campaigning.”

Since floating the bill, Modi, his government and the BJP have been accusing critics of being sympathetic to criminals in politics.

On Friday, speaking at a rally in election-bound Bihar state, Modi referred to Kejriwal’s refusal for months after his arrest on money laundering charges to quit from the Delhi chief minister’s post.

“Some time ago, we saw how files were being signed from jail and how government orders were given from jail. If leaders have such an attitude, how can we fight corruption?” Modi said.

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said that while the bill is draconian and could be misused, Modi’s party, for now, thinks it can help them consolidate urban, middle-class votes for the upcoming election in Bihar.

“The opposition is in a bind because public opinion is against corruption,” he said. “It’s a double-edged sword.”

THE exact moment that sparked Princess Andre’s feud with mum Katie Price was captured on camera as the teen made her modelling debut in Ibiza.

The mum and daughter duo, who are often hailed “twins” due to their lookalike appearance, are battling through a tricky patch in their relationship, as exclusively revealed by The Sun.

7

7

7

7

Katie, 47, told us she “feels like Brooklyn Beckham” – who is in the midst of a feud with his high-profile family – after being “isolated” by the teen, who has penned a host of influencer deals and bagged her own TV show.

Now scenes for the 18-year-old’s new TV show, The Princess Diaries, show her joining 24 other models on the catwalk in the White Isle.

She opts for a turquoise dress with bra top detail and a flowing skirt after a last minute outfit change which left her feeling anxious.

She toild the camera: “There’s a lot of models here I don’t really fit in.

“I feel really anxious, I can feel my face getting red.”

Yet after being asked to lead the array of models, Princess’ debut was hugely successful.

Her big brother Junior and his girlfriend Jazz were on hand to sip fizz and offer support inn the crowd.

As she wrapped the catwalk she cheered: “I did it i did it, I’m actually really glad I did it.

“It was a lot less intense than I thought.”

Yet at the same time as she was walking the runway, Katie was flashing her bum and new tattoos on the party island.

In a snap shared on EastEnders star Dean Gaffney‘s Instagram page, Katie could be seen partying with the former soap actor.

Standing in between Dean and pal Jamie O’Hara, Katie posed and pouted as the two men beamed.

A source told how the drama then played out between the pair as they were in the same location and said: “This should be a really exciting time for Princess but over the last couple of months her mum has been doing everything she can to take the limelight away from her.

Who is Princess Andre and what’s her job?

Princess Andre born June 29, 2007, is the daughter of Mysterious Girl singer Peter Andre and former glamour model Katie Price.

The pair also welcomed a son while they were together, Junior, born on June 13, 2005.

Katie and Peter then split in early 2009, with their divorce being finalised in October of the same year.

Princess also has six half siblings, four from Katie and two from Peter.

As of June 2024, Princess has an impressive 750,000 followers on her Instagram account, @officialprincess_andre.

Ahead of her 16th birthday, in June 2023, Princess opened up about what she wants to do with her future during a Q&A with fans and followers.

The teen said she is seeking out “financial freedom” through her beauty and fashion brand deals, as well as her own jewellery brand named ‘Sparkle’ by Princess Andre.

“Princess was booked to make her catwalk debut at the opening of the Ibiza Fashion Festival back in June, and what did Katie do?

“She flew out to Ibiza and made sure everyone knew she was there with daily stories and pictures with the likes of Wayne Lineker and Dean Gaffney. It’s embarrassing.”

They added to MailOnline: “What mother wouldn’t want to let their child have their time in the spotlight?

“These latest comments are going to really upset Princess.

“Nothing is private with Katie, it’s all about keeping herself in the limelight.”

Katie’s rep has been contacted for comment.

KATIE’S SNUB

ITV2 bosses reportedly told how Katie could not be a part of the series.

A source told The Sun of the family turmoil and said: “Katie feels isolated and disregarded.

“She loves Princess so much and is supremely proud of the young woman she is becoming.

“Princess told her mum that she needed to distance herself publicly and yet chats to her all the time behind closed doors.

“She feels a bit like Brooklyn Beckham, with no one in the Andre family really speaking to her.”

Katie and Peter started their relationship in 2004 after getting together on I’m A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out Of Here!.

They had Junior and Princess during their four-year marriage.

But their relationship fell apart in 2009 and they divorced.

SHOW SNUB

Princess is said to be hoping to show fans a different side to her with her brand new fly-on-the-wall series.

Despite Katie not getting a look-in, the programme will feature her dad and his wife Emily, according to MailOnline.

A source said: “Katie will not be in Princess’s show, the decision has been made and it’s final.

“Princess loves her mum, and they have a great relationship, but the show is all about her work and home life.

“Television bosses were adamant that nothing was to be ‘staged’ to include Katie as it would not be a real and truthful insight into her life.”

STRAINED RELATIONSHIP

It comes after Princess admitted this month she “wishes she had a happier childhood.”

The TikTok star also addressed the “dark times” while she was growing up.

While Princess was too young to really remember her parents together, she has traumatic memories of the breakdown of Katie’s third marriage to Kieran Hayler.

In her new ITV2 series – The Princess Diaries – the teen opens up about her younger years and admits: “I did have a counsellor, I do still see her every now and then.

“But I don’t feel like I can really talk, so I just write everything down in my notes.”

She also revealed the sick messages she gets from men when she reveals her figure on social media – leaving dad Peter shocked.

For his part, he stood by his eldest daughter as they posed in a new snap taken on holiday.

7

7

7

New Delhi, India – What if Michael had died instead of Sonny in The Godfather? Or if Rose had shared the debris plank, and Jack hadn’t been left to freeze in the Atlantic in Titanic*?

Eros International, one of India’s largest production houses, with more than 4,000 films in its catalogue, has decided to explore this sort of what-if scenario. It has re-released one of its major hits, Raanjhanaa, a 2013 romantic drama, in cinemas – but has used artificial intelligence (AI) to change its tragic end, in which the male lead dies.

In the AI-altered version, Kundan (played by popular actor Dhanush), a Hindu man who has a doomed romance with a Muslim woman, lives. But the film’s director, Aanand L Rai, is furious.

“The idea that our work can be taken and modified by a machine, then dressed up as innovation, is deeply disrespectful,” Rai said, adding that the entire film crew had been kept in the dark about the re-release.

“What makes it worse is the complete ease and casualness with which it’s been done,” said Rai. “It is a reckless takeover that strips the work of its intent, its context, and its soul.”

This is the first time a film studio has re-released a movie with AI alterations, anywhere in the world, and it has also caused an uproar among critics, filmmakers and film lovers.

Here is what we know so far about why this move has been so controversial, and what the legal and ethical issues are.

How has the film been altered?

Eros International, a prominent film studio, has re-released a Tamil-dubbed version of the film, Raanjhanaa, titled Ambikapathy, with an alternate, AI-generated ending.

This altered version, which significantly deviates from the original film’s climax, screened at cinemas in Tamil Nadu, a southern Indian state, on August 1.

At the end of the original movie, the lead male character, Kundan, lies dead, covered in bruises from his injuries, in a hospital with his lover sitting by his side, crying. In the AI-altered ending, however, Kundan does not die. Instead, he opens his eyes and starts to stand up.

How have people reacted to the re-release?

The release of the AI-altered version prompted immediate objections from the film’s original creators. Dhanush, a Tamil actor, issued a statement noting that “this alternate ending stripped the film of its soul” and that the re-release had “completely disturbed” him.

With its changed ending, Ranjhaanna is “not the film I committed to 12 years ago”, he said. The actor added that the use of AI to alter films “is a deeply concerning precedent for both art and artists [that] threatens the integrity of storytelling and the legacy of cinema”.

Rai, the director, shared a detailed note on Instagram condemning the move. “Let me say this as clearly as I can: I do not support or endorse the AI-altered version … It is unauthorised. And whatever it claims to be, it is not the film we intended, or made.”

“This was never just a film to us. It was shaped by human hands, human flaws, and human feeling,” Rai added. “To cloak a film’s emotional legacy in a synthetic cape without consent is not a creative act. It’s an abject betrayal of everything we built.”

Richard Allen, professor of film and media art at City University of Hong Kong, said it seems inevitable that AI-altering will become a mainstream method of filmmaking in global film industries.

“If producers think they can make more money out of old content by using AI, they will do so,” Allen told Al Jazeera.

Is AI-altering legal?

Rai has said that he is investigating legal options to challenge the re-release of this movie.

Eros International insists that its actions are perfectly legal, however, and has refused to retract the re-release.

“This re-release is not a replacement – it is a creative reinterpretation, clearly labelled and transparently positioned,” said Pradeep Dwivedi, chief executive of Eros International Media.

Dwivedi noted that under Indian copyright law, the producer of a film (in this case, Eros International) is deemed its author and primary rights-holder, meaning that the production house is the first owner of copyright for the film.

He said the film studio is “the exclusive producer and copyright holder, holds full legal and moral rights” under Indian laws. He described the alternate ending to the movie as “a new emotional lens to today’s audiences”.

The studio, which has released more than 4,000 movies globally, will “embrace generative AI as the next frontier in responsible storytelling”, Dwivedi said, adding that Eros International is “uniquely positioned to bridge cinematic legacy with future-ready formats”.

What about the ethics of this?

Mayank Shekhar, an Indian film critic, said the real issue with AI-altering is one of ethics: doing it without the expressed consent of the creators – writer, director and actors – involved.

“What’s left then is simply the legalese of who owns the copyright, or who paid for the product, and is hence the sole producer, and therefore the owner of the work,” Shekhar said. “Technically, I suppose, or so it seems, what Eros has done isn’t illegal – it’s certainly unethical.”

In his statement, Eros International’s Dwivedi said that every era of cinema has faced the clash between “Luddites and Progressives”. He added: “When sound replaced silence, when colour replaced black-and-white, when digital challenged celluloid, and now, when AI meets narrative.”

Dwivedi insisted that reimagining the movie’s ending was not “artificial storytelling,” but “augmented storytelling, a wave of the future”.

Has AI been used to alter films before?

AI has not been used to alter the storyline of an existing movie by its own producers or crew for re-release before this.

However, it has been used for post-production purposes in movies – such as voice dubbing or computer-generated imagery (CGI) enhancements. Its use was a flashpoint in Hollywood during the labour protests of 2023, which resulted in new guidelines for the use of the technology.

In an interview, The Brutalist’s Oscar-nominated editor, David Jancso, said that the production had used a Ukrainian software company, Respeecher, to make the lead actors, Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones, sound more “authentic” when they spoke Hungarian in the film.

Similarly, filmmaker David Fincher supervised a 4K restoration of his celebrated crime-thriller, “Se7en” for its 30th anniversary this year, using AI to correct technical flaws in focus and colour.

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO, said last month that the company had used generative AI to produce visual effects for the first time on screen in its original series, El Eternauta, or The Eternaut. Netflix has also been exploring the use of trailers personalised for subscribers’ user profiles.

Reuters reported that Netflix had also tested AI to synchronise actors’ lip movements with dubbed dialogue to “improve the viewing experience”, quoting company sources.

Will AI alterations become the norm in cinema?

Allen said the alteration to Raanjhanaa felt different from the way AI has been used to enhance movies in the past. “There are so many things that AI doctoring might do to a movie,” he said.

However, he added: “We won’t necessarily lose sight of the definitive version, unless newly released versions are mislabelled as restorations or original versions of the movies themselves, which goes back to the ethical frameworks.”

Shekhar said: “The larger issue is simply of regulation. AI is too new for laws to catch up yet.

“The fact is, a work of art ought to be protected from predators. And respected for its own worth, whether or not somebody likes the ending of a film!”

An alternative ending to a film also needs to be plausible.

In 2022, Titanic director James Cameron said he commissioned a forensic analysis, involving a hypothermia expert, that proved there would have been no way for both Jack and Rose to survive on that infamous floating door. Jack “had to die”, Cameron said then.

And AI can’t change that science.

Southern California Edison’s admission that its equipment may have ignited the Hurst fire in the San Fernando Valley on Jan. 7 is being seized on by lawyers suing the utility company for another fire in the same area nearly six years earlier.

Both the Saddleridge fire in 2019 and the Hurst fire this year started beneath an Edison high-voltage transmission line in Sylmar. The lawyers say faulty equipment on the line ignited both blazes in the same way.

“The evidence will show that five separate fires ignited at five separate SCE transmission tower bases in the same exact manner as the fire that started the Saddleridge fire,” the lawyers wrote of the Hurst fire in a June 9 filing in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawyers said the January wildfire is “further evidence” that a transmission pylon known as Tower 2-5 “is improperly grounded.”

Edison told the state Public Utilities Commission in February that “absent additional evidence, SCE believes its equipment may be associated with the ignition of the Hurst Fire.” But the company denies claims that its equipment sparked the 2019 fire, which tore through Sylmar, Porter Ranch and Granada Hills — all suburbs of Los Angeles — burning 8,799 acres.

“We will continue to focus on facts and evidence — not on preposterous and sensational theories that only serve to harm the real victims,” said Edison spokesman David Eisenhauer. He declined further comment on the case.

The Saddleridge wildfire destroyed or damaged more than 100 homes and other structures, according to Cal Fire, and caused at least one death when resident Aiman El Sabbagh suffered a cardiac arrest.

Edison is being sued by insurance companies, including State Farm and USAA, to recoup the cost of damages paid to their policyholders. Homeowners and other victims are also seeking damages. A jury trial for the consolidated cases is set for Nov. 4.

In their June 9 filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers also claimed Edison wasn’t transparent with officials looking into the cause of the 2019 fire. One fire official characterized the utility’s action as “deceptive,” the filing said.

Edison discovered a fault on its system at 8:57 p.m. — just three minutes before the blaze at the base of its transmission tower was reported to the Fire Department by Sylmar resident Robert Delgado, according to the court filing.

But Edison didn’t tell the Los Angeles city Fire Department about the fault it recorded, the filing said. Instead the fire department’s investigation team discovered the failure on Edison’s transmission lines through dash cam footage recorded by a motorist driving on the 210 Freeway nearby, the filing said.

When Timothy Halloran, a city Fire Department investigator, went to the location of the flash shown on the motorist’s camera, he found “evidence of a failure on SCE’s equipment,” the filing said.

Halloran said in a deposition that employees of the business located where the evidence was found told him that Edison employees “attempted to purchase” footage from the company’s security camera on the night of the fire, the filing said.

“The video footage shows a large flash emanating from the direction of SCE Transmission Tower 5-2,” the filing said.

Halloran testified in his deposition that he believed Edison was trying to be “deceptive” for attempting to purchase the security camera footage and not reporting the system fault to the Fire Department, the lawyers said.

Halloran didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Edison’s maintenance of its transmission lines is now being scrutinized as it faces dozens of lawsuits from victims of the devastating Eaton fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7.

Videos showed that fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes, starting under a transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The investigation into the cause of the fire is continuing.

Victims of the 2019 fire say they’ve become disheartened as Edison has repeatedly asked for delays in the court case.

“Many plaintiffs have not yet been able to rebuild their homes” because of the delays, wrote Mara Burnett, a lawyer representing the family of the man who died.

Burnett noted that Aiman El Sabbagh was 54 when he suffered a fatal cardiac arrest during the incident. His children, Tala and Adnan El Sabbagh, “feel they were robbed of things they treasured and worked hard for with no apparent recompense in sight.”

Both the Saddleridge and Hurst fires included a similar chain of events where a failure of equipment on one tower resulted in two or more fires igniting under different towers elsewhere on the line, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Edison designed and constructed the towers that run through Sylmar in 1970. They hold up two transmission lines: the Gould-Sylmar 220 kV circuit and the Eagle Rock-Sylmar 220 kV circuit.

In the case of the Saddleridge fire, investigators from the Los Angeles Fire Department and the California Public Utilities Commission found that at 8:57 pm on Oct. 10, 2019, a Y-shaped steel part holding up a transmission line failed, causing the line to fall on a steel arm.

The failure caused a massive electrical fault, lawyers for the plaintiffs say, that sparked fires at two transmission towers that were more than two miles away.

State and city fire investigators say the Saddleridge fire began under one of those towers. And they found unusual burning at the footing of the other tower, according to a report by an investigator at the utilities commission.

The utilities commission investigator said in the report that he found that Edison had violated five state regulations by not properly maintaining or designing its transmission equipment.

This year’s Hurst fire ignited not far away on Jan. 7 at 10:10 p.m. It also began under one of Edison’s transmission towers.

According to Edison’s Feb. 6 report to the utilities commission, the company found that its hardware failed, resulting in equipment falling to the ground at the base of a tower.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs say that they now have more evidence of the fire’s start. They say that investigators found that the hardware failure set off an event — similar to the 2019 fire — that resulted in five fires at five separate transmission tower bases on the same line.

One of those fires spread in high winds to become the Hurst fire. Officials ordered 44,000 people to evacuate. Air tankers and 300 firefighters contained the fire before it reached any homes.