Donald Trump, Melania test positve for covid-19

New Delhi: Setting speculation to the rest, the CPI(M) has made it clear that it is open to have an electoral understanding with the Congress “to defeat” the Trinamool Congress and the BJP in West Bengal Assembly election even as it is all set to take on the grand old party in Kerala accusing it of “found wanting” in fighting the Hindutva forces.

The CPI(M) also said that it will contest the Tamil Nadu election “with DMK and its allies to defeat the BJP and its allies”, amid a section in the Congress triggering confusion about its participation in the M K Stalin-led coalition over demand over power-sharing and more seats. It is also willing to join hands with Congress and others in Assam and Puducherry to defeat the BJP.

The decisions came at a three-day meeting of the CPI(M) Central Committee in Thiruvananthapuram, which ended on Sunday after reviewing the poll preparations in the poll-bound states.

The CPI(M)'s decision came even as a section led by West Bengal Congress president Subhankar Sarkar is averse to tying up with the Left Front, claiming that their party is not benefitted by the electoral understanding. Both Congress and CPI(M)-led Left Front had electoral understanding in 2016 and 2021 Assembly elections and 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

Congress and the Left Front fought together for the first time in 2016 when Congress won 44 seats and the CPI(M) got 26. In 2021, the Left Front and the Congress drew a blank. In the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Congress managed to win one seat while the Left did not win any. In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, both fought against each other with Congress winning two and the Left none.

“In Bengal, the party will work for the defeat of both the TMC and the BJP, which are trying to polarise the society. We will try to rally all the forces that are ready to work against them,” the CPI(M) said in a statement without naming Congress by name. Senior leaders said there is no change in its strategy of pooling all non-BJP, non-TMC votes.

However, the party was critical of the Congress in Kerala where both will fight against each other.

The CPI(M) said it would "expose the BJP-led Union government’s denial of rightful dues to Kerala, the fiscal constraints imposed and the overall attack on federalism" as also "expose the failure of the Congress to effectively counter this attack on federalism, as the largest opposition party in the Parliament".

"The Congress, especially in Kerala, was found wanting in the fight against communal RSS-BJP, ideologically and this will also be exposed before the people," it added.

In Assam, it said, the CPI(M) will work for the mobilisation of all the anti-BJP parties and forces and defeat the rabidly communal and divisive BJP government. The Left parties are cooperating with Congress in the north-eastern state. In Puducherry, it said it will work for the defeat of the BJP alliance government.

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.

The US Department of Justice has released millions of new documents linked to the case of convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, before removing some pages that contained complaints mentioning President Donald Trump.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Friday that approximately 3.5 million files were published to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act, following criticism that the administration had missed a December 19 deadline set by Congress.

The documents include FBI communications and complaints submitted as tips, some of which list comments mentioning Trump and others who had social or professional ties to Epstein.

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in relation to his past association with Epstein.

Pages removed from DOJ website

After their publication, pages containing complaints that mentioned Trump were removed from the DOJ website and now return a “page not found” message. Copies of the documents, however, have circulated widely on social media. CNN anchor Jake Tapper was among those who publicly noted that the pages had been taken down.

One complaint, filed by a friend of a victim, says Trump forced a girl aged 13–14 to perform “oral sex” approximately 35 years ago in New Jersey. The document states that an investigator was sent to Washington to conduct an interview.

Another complaint says Trump regularly paid an individual to perform sexual acts and adds that he was present when her newborn child was murdered by a relative. The paperwork notes that there was “no contact made” with the complainant.

A separate complaint, which provided no contact information, said “calendar girls” parties at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago involved children and sexual abuse. The document also names several public figures as present at such events.

In another account, a complainant said they witnessed a “sex trafficking ring” at Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, in the mid-1990s. The person noted “threats” from Trump’s head of security if she spoke publicly about what she had seen.

Other figures mentioned in the files

The latest release also includes a draft email Epstein wrote to himself in 2013, referring to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. In the message, Epstein said Gates asked him to delete emails and referenced “personal matters.”

The DOJ has not provided a detailed explanation for why certain pages were removed after publication. The department said the document release was ongoing.