No intelligence inputs on blasts: Nitish

New Delhi: In a big blow to Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a Delhi court has ordered the framing of charges against the former Wrestling Federation of India chief in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by women wrestlers. The court has said there is sufficient evidence on record to do so, and the trial against him can now begin. 

Friday's order by the Rouse Avenue court comes days after the BJP decided not to repeat Mr Singh, who is the party MP from Uttar Pradesh's Kaiserganj, as the candidate from the constituency and decided to field his son Karan Bhushan Singh instead. 

The court has ordered the framing of charges under Indian Penal Code sections Ordered to frame charges against Brij Bhushan under sections 354 (outraging a woman's modesty), 354-A (sexual harassment) and 506 (criminal intimidation). The Delhi Police had filed a chargesheet against under these sections and one additional section - 354D (stalking) - on June 15 last year. 

Charges should also be framed against the former assistant secretary of the Federation, Vinod Tomar, under Section 506, the court said. 

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Priyanka Rajpoot said the charges will be framed against Mr Singh for sexually harassing five wrestlers and that he stands discharged in the allegations levelled by the sixth.

The six-time MP has been at the centre of a huge political storm since last year, when sexual harassment charges were levelled against him and protesters had hit the streets led by Olympic medallists Sakshee Malikkh and Bajrang Punia, as well as Commonwealth Games and Asian Games medallist Vinesh Phogat.

Congress leader Sam Pitroda has stepped down from the post of Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress and his resignation was accepted by the party. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh took to X and announced that Sam Pitroda had decided to resign from the key post "of his own accord".

Pitroda had been under fire over his controversial remark that Indians in the East resemble the Chinese while those in the South look like Africans.

"We could hold together a country as diverse as India -- where people on East look like Chinese, people on West look like Arab, people on North look like maybe White and people in South look like Africans. It doesn't matter. We are all brothers and sisters," Pitroda said during an interview with The Statesman.

The Congress immediately distanced itself from Pitroda's remarks, terming them "unacceptable".

"The analogies drawn by Mr Sam Pitroda in a podcast to illustrate India's diversity are most unfortunate and unacceptable. The Indian National Congress completely dissociates itself from these analogies," Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X.

The BJP also hit out at the Congress over Pitroda's remarks and termed them "racist and divisive".

The Supreme Court Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal till June 1 in the excise policy case.

The top court, however, stated that it will be passing a detailed order over the matter soon.

On Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate had opposed the move to grant interim bail to Kejriwal saying that “any special concession” to him will “amount to anathema to the rule of law and equality… thereby creating two separate classes in the country viz. ordinary people, who are bound by the rule of law as well as the laws of the country, and politicians who can seek exemption from the laws”.

The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21 in the excise policy case.

“The right to campaign for an election is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right,” the ED said, maintaining that to its knowledge, “no political leader has been granted interim bail for campaigning even though he is not the contesting candidate”.

After the ED filed its affidavit, the AAP, in a press release, said, “The legal team of Delhi Chief Minister and AAP National Convenor, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, has raised strong objection to the affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate opposing interim bail in the Supreme Court.”