Key takeaways from Supreme Court verdict on Article 370 abrogation

A fresh cache of files related to the investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein contains documents that reference President Donald Trump and other high-profile figures including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and British billionaire Richard Branson.

Here are key details about mentions of the celebrities, none of whom have been accused of wrongdoing:

Donald Trump

The files included an FBI-compiled list of sexual assault allegations related to President Donald Trump -- many of them involving anonymous callers and unverified tips.

The allegations -- some secondhand -- were sent to the FBI's National Threat Operations Center which receives information by phone and electronically.

The document suggests that investigators followed up on a number of the tips. Some were deemed to lack credibility.

Trump has long denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein.

In a statement accompanying Friday's file dump, the Justice Department said: "Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false."

Bill Gates

In a draft email among the documents, Epstein alleged Gates had engaged in extramarital affairs.

In the mail, Epstein wrote that his relationship with Gates had ranged from "helping Bill to get drugs, in order to deal with consequences of sex with russian girls, to facilitating his illicit trysts, with married women."

Richard Branson

Files show friendly relations between the two billionaires.

In an email sent to Epstein on Sept 11, 2013, Branson wrote "It was really nice seeing you yesterday. The boys in Watersports can't stop speaking about it! Any time you're in the area would love to see you. As long as you bring your harem!"

Elon Musk

The files contain numerous mail exchanges between Epstein and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking "how many people will you be for the heli to island."

"Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?" Musk replied.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

The disgraced former prince invited Epstein to visit him at Buckingham Palace in September 2010 while the financier was making a trip to London.

An email exchange shows Epstein contacting Andrew to ask: "What time would you like me... we will also need... private time."

Andrew replied: "we could have dinner at Buckingham Palace and lots of privacy."

Howard Lutnick

Emails show that Epstein and businessman Lutnick -- currently Trump's commerce secretary -- made plans in December 2012 to lunch on Epstein's Caribbean island.

"We are heading towards you from St. Thomas" Lutnick's wife wrote to Epstein's secretary, asking where they should anchor.

Steve Tisch

Several mails suggested Epstein connected Steve Tisch, 76, producer of the movies "Forrest Gump" and "Risky Business" and the co-owner of the New York Giants football team, with multiple women.

In one exchange with Tisch, Epstein describes a woman as "russian, and rarely tells the full truth, but fun."

Zohran Mamdani's Mother, Filmmaker Mira Nair 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's mother, Mira Nair, attended an afterparty at convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell's house for her 2009 film "Amelia", reveals a new set of Epstein files.

An email dated October 21, 2009, sent by publicist Peggy Siegal to Jeffrey Epstein, also surfaced in documents. The email, sent in the early hours, right after Siegal left the gathering, gives an insight into the afterparty. 

The party was also attended by former President Bill Clinton and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

"Just left Ghislaine's townhouse...after party for film. Bill Clinton and Jeff Bezos were there...Jean Pigoni, director Mira Nair....etc," the email read.

The email described the reaction of guests to Nair's film as "tepid."

"Film received tepid reaction although women like it much more...Hillary Swank and Gen: at stupid party in Bloomingdales cheap sportwear department....very weird. Studio went for free party from store and windows for a month....Going to be in Wall Street 2 tomorrow ....more to come. xoxo Peg," the email read.

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Sunday criticised the Union Budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, claiming it offered no tangible benefit to the state.

Though he said he was yet to study the budget in detail, Shivakumar asserted that Karnataka had gained little from it. “There is no benefit for our state from the central budget. I was observing it. They have now named a programme after Mahatma Gandhi, after repealing the MGNREGA Act that was named after him,” he said.

Speaking to reporters here, the Deputy Chief Minister demanded the restoration of MGNREGA, and made it clear that the newly enacted rural employment scheme — VB-G RAM G — which proposes a 60:40 fund-sharing formula between the Centre and the states, would not be implemented in Karnataka.

“I don’t see any major share for our state in this budget,” he added.

Shivakumar, who also holds charge of Bengaluru development, said there were high expectations for the city from the Union Budget. “The Prime Minister calls Bengaluru a ‘global city’, but what has the Centre done for it?” he asked.

He also drew attention to the problems faced by sugar factories, particularly those in the cooperative sector, alleging a lack of timely decisions and support from the central government.

Noting that the Centre has the authority to fix the minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural produce, Shivakumar said the Union government must take concrete steps to protect farmers’ interests.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.