Asia Cup 2025 venues revealed, blockbuster India vs Pakistan to be played at THIS stadium
PCB bans use of 'Pakistan' in private leagues after India Champions walk out from WCL semi-final
Happy Friendship Day 2025: Top 20+ heartwarming WhatsApp messages, quotes to celebrate your bond
Earthquake of 5.4 magnitude jolts parts of Pakistan
Centre's BIG statement on F-35 fighter jets deal with US, says, 'No formal discussions...'
Jasprit Bumrah to miss Asia Cup 2025? Report makes BIG claim amidst workload concerns
INDIA
Earlier, on May 13, the court had granted bail to the accused persons. On April 30, it granted exemption from personal appearance to the accused persons, except Vivek Gupta The court had summoned the accused persons on April 21 while taking congisance of the chargesheet.
A Delhi court on Thursday discharged 10 TMC leaders, including Derek O'Brien, Sagarika Ghose, and Saket Gokhale, in a case linked to a protest outside the Election Commission of India last year, despite prohibitory orders being in place. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal passed the order of discharge.
Delhi court discharges 10 TMC leaders
A detailed order is awaited. Earlier, on May 13, the court had granted bail to the accused persons. On April 30, it granted an exemption from personal appearance to the accused persons, except Vivek Gupta. The court had summoned the accused persons on April 21 while taking congisance of the chargesheet.
What is the ECI protest case?
The TMC leaders held a protest against central probe agencies, CBI, NIA, ED, and the Income Tax Department in April last year. A 10-member delegation of the TMC had announced the protest after meeting a full bench of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to press their demand. The party alleged the central probe agencies were targeting opposition parties at the behest of the BJP-led Centre.
Delhi Police alleged that TMC leaders accused in the case gathered outside the main gate of the ECI on April 8 last year and held a protest with placards and banners without requisite permission and despite Section 144 (prohibitory orders) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being in place.
Police alleged they continued to protest despite being informed about the prohibitory orders, following which an FIR was registered.