The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to nine people&nbsp;being questioned by the Assam Police in connection with the state-led campaign against child marriages.&nbsp;The Gauhati High Court noted that there is no need to interrogate the apprehended or accused in custody in this matter while citing how the crackdown has caused ‘havoc in the private lives of people.’&nbsp;The Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) and rape charges against individuals found guilty of child marriage were also denounced by the Assam high court. The claims and accusations made by the BJP-led Assam government were deemed "absolutely weird" by the&nbsp;High Court.

All of the petitioners in the child marriage cases were given instant clearance by Justice Suman Shyam to be released on bail, as per ANI reports.

"These are not matters of custodial interrogation. You (state) proceed as per law, we have nothing to say. If you find somebody guilty, file a charge sheet. Let him or her face trial and if they are convicted, they are convicted," the judge said.

"This (arrest) is&nbsp;causing havoc&nbsp;in the private life of people. There are children, there are family members, there are old people. This may not be a good idea to go for (arrests), obviously it is a bad idea," he observed on Tuesday (February 14).&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/on-adani-row-the-indian-government-accepts-supreme-courts-suggestion-562350">India's top court to hear opposition lawmaker's petition against Adani</a>

<h2>Child marriages in Assam</h2>

In Assam, 4,225 incidents of child marriage have been registered as of February 14; 3,031 persons have been detained in total and 4,004 FIRs were filed when the crackdown began on February 3.

The state government does not even have space in the jails, Justice Shyam informed Additional Public Prosecutor D Das, and he recommended that the administration build larger prisons.

Justice Shyam responded to the government advocate's observation that cases had been filed under the POCSO Act's non-bailable charges and the rape (IPC Section 376) provision by saying, "What is the POCSO here? Merely because POCSO is added, does it mean the judges will not see what is there?"

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;Air India to buy over 200 Boeing planes, deal is biggest in aviation history

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/air-india-to-buy-over-200-boeing-planes-deal-is-biggest-in-aviation-history-562129/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The high court is not acquitting anybody and nobody is preventing the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/explained-what-does-the-discovery-of-lithium-in-jk-mean-for-india-561632">government</a> from investigating the cases of child marriages," he added.

"Why Section 376 (of IPC)? Is there any allegation of rape here? These are all weird allegations, absolutely weird," Justice Shyam continued.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to nine people being questioned by the Assam Police in connection with the state-led campaign against child marriages.

The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to nine people being questioned by the Assam Police in connection with the state-led campaign against child marriages. The Gauhati High Court noted that there is no need to interrogate the apprehended or accused in custody in this matter while citing how the crackdown has caused ‘havoc in the private lives of people.’ The Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) and rape charges against individuals found guilty of child marriage were also denounced by the Assam high court. The claims and accusations made by the BJP-led Assam government were deemed "absolutely weird" by the High Court. All of the petitioners in the child marriage cases were given instant clearance by Justice Suman Shyam to be released on bail, as per ANI reports. "These are not matters of custodial interrogation. You (state) proceed as per law, we have nothing to say. If you find somebody guilty, file a charge sheet. Let him or her face trial and if they are convicted, they are convicted," the judge said. "This (arrest) is causing havoc in the private life of people. There are children, there are family members, there are old people. This may not be a good idea to go for (arrests), obviously it is a bad idea," he observed on Tuesday (February 14). ALSO READ | India's top court to hear opposition lawmaker's petition against Adani Child marriages in Assam In Assam, 4,225 incidents of child marriage have been registered as of February 14; 3,031 persons have been detained in total and 4,004 FIRs were filed when the crackdown began on February 3. The state government does not even have space in the jails, Justice Shyam informed Additional Public Prosecutor D Das, and he recommended that the administration build larger prisons. Justice Shyam responded to the government advocate's observation that cases had been filed under the POCSO Act's non-bailable charges and the rape (IPC Section 376) provision by saying, "What is the POCSO here? Merely because POCSO is added, does it mean the judges will not see what is there?" ALSO WATCH | Air India to buy over 200 Boeing planes, deal is biggest in aviation history "The high court is not acquitting anybody and nobody is preventing the government from investigating the cases of child marriages," he added. "Why Section 376 (of IPC)? Is there any allegation of rape here? These are all weird allegations, absolutely weird," Justice Shyam continued. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Gauhati HC grants bail in child marriage cases, says crackdown caused ‘havoc in private lives of people’

Urging the Metropolitan Opera to compensate its artists “appropriately,” the company’s music director, Yannick Nézet-Séguin, sent a letter to leaders at the Met on Thursday saying that the many months its orchestra and chorus had gone without pay during the pandemic had become “increasingly unacceptable.”

He sent the letter as the Met’s musicians were scheduled to receive their first partial paychecks since they were furloughed in April. Before this week, they had been the last major ensemble in the country without a deal for at least some pay during the pandemic. In addressing the players’ nearly yearlong furlough — and hinting at the tough negotiations ahead, in which the Met is seeking long-term pay cuts from its unionized employees — Nézet-Séguin was doing something rare for a music director: weighing in on labor matters.

“Of course, I understand this is a complex situation,” Nézet-Séguin wrote, “but as the public face of the Met on a musical level, I am finding it increasingly hard to justify what has happened.”

The letter was obtained by The New York Times and confirmed by its recipients, which included Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager; the leaders of the negotiating committees representing the chorus and orchestra; and members of the opera’s board of directors.

“We risk losing talent permanently,” Nézet-Séguin warned in the letter. “The orchestra and chorus are our crown jewels, and they must be protected. Their talent is the Met. The artists of the Met are the institution.”

The orchestra committee has said that 10 out of 97 members have retired during the pandemic as the ensemble has gone unpaid, a stark increase from the two to three who retire in an average year.

“Protecting the long-term future of the Met is inextricably linked with retaining these musicians, and with respecting their livelihoods, their income and their well-being,” Nézet-Séguin wrote.

The Met said in a statement that “we share Yannick’s frustration over the lengthy closure and the impact it has had on our employees,” and added that the company was pleased that its orchestra and chorus and others were now receiving bridge pay. The Met said all involved were “working together for new agreements that will ensure the sustainability of the Met into the future.”

The Met, the nation’s largest performing arts organization, has said that since the pandemic forced it to shut its doors it has lost an estimated $150 million in earned revenue, and that it was seeking pay cuts from its workers, as many arts institutions have. The Met has been trying to cut the payroll costs for its highest-paid unions by 30% — the change in take-home pay would be more like 20%, it has said — and has offered to restore half the cuts when ticket revenue and core donations return to prepandemic levels.

Months into the furlough, the Met offered partial paychecks to its workers if they agreed to those cuts, but the unions resisted. At the end of the year, the Met offered partial paychecks on a temporary basis for simply returning to the bargaining table. Members of the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents chorus members, dancers and others, accepted at the end of January and have been receiving paychecks for more than a month. The orchestra musicians voted to accept the offer this week. (The Met has locked out its stagehands, whose contract expired last year.)

Nézet-Séguin wrote in his letter that he was relieved that both the musicians and the chorus members are now being paid, but added that “this is just a start.” The deal allows for temporary payments of up to $1,543 a week, less than half of what the musicians are typically paid.

Nézet-Séguin was named the Met’s music director in 2016, when he was tapped to succeed James Levine, who led the company for four decades (Levine, who stepped down to an emeritus position because of health problems and was then fired two years later after an investigation into sexual abuse allegations, died this month.)

“I implore the fiduciaries of this incredible house to urgently help to find a solution to compensate our artists appropriately,” Nézet-Séguin wrote. “We all realize the challenges, economic and otherwise, that the Met is facing, and therefore I ask for empathy, honesty and open communication throughout this process.”

Urging the Metropolitan Opera to compensate its artists “appropriately,” the company’s music director, Yannick Nézet-Séguin, sent a letter to leaders at the Met on Thursday saying that the many months its orchestra and chorus had gone without pay during the pandemic had become “increasingly unacceptable.

Urging the Metropolitan Opera to compensate its artists “appropriately,” the company’s music director, Yannick Nézet-Séguin, sent a letter to leaders at the Met on Thursday saying that the many months its orchestra and chorus had gone without pay during the pandemic had become “increasingly unacceptable.” He sent the letter as the Met’s musicians were scheduled to receive their first partial paychecks since they were furloughed in April. Before this week, they had been the last major ensemble in the country without a deal for at least some pay during the pandemic. In addressing the players’ nearly yearlong furlough — and hinting at the tough negotiations ahead, in which the Met is seeking long-term pay cuts from its unionized employees — Nézet-Séguin was doing something rare for a music director: weighing in on labor matters. “Of course, I understand this is a complex situation,” Nézet-Séguin wrote, “but as the public face of the Met on a musical level, I am finding it increasingly hard to justify what has happened.” The letter was obtained by The New York Times and confirmed by its recipients, which included Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager; the leaders of the negotiating committees representing the chorus and orchestra; and members of the opera’s board of directors. “We risk losing talent permanently,” Nézet-Séguin warned in the letter. “The orchestra and chorus are our crown jewels, and they must be protected. Their talent is the Met. The artists of the Met are the institution.” The orchestra committee has said that 10 out of 97 members have retired during the pandemic as the ensemble has gone unpaid, a stark increase from the two to three who retire in an average year. “Protecting the long-term future of the Met is inextricably linked with retaining these musicians, and with respecting their livelihoods, their income and their well-being,” Nézet-Séguin wrote. The Met said in a statement that “we share Yannick’s frustration over the lengthy closure and the impact it has had on our employees,” and added that the company was pleased that its orchestra and chorus and others were now receiving bridge pay. The Met said all involved were “working together for new agreements that will ensure the sustainability of the Met into the future.” The Met, the nation’s largest performing arts organization, has said that since the pandemic forced it to shut its doors it has lost an estimated $150 million in earned revenue, and that it was seeking pay cuts from its workers, as many arts institutions have. The Met has been trying to cut the payroll costs for its highest-paid unions by 30% — the change in take-home pay would be more like 20%, it has said — and has offered to restore half the cuts when ticket revenue and core donations return to prepandemic levels. Months into the furlough, the Met offered partial paychecks to its workers if they agreed to those cuts, but the unions resisted. At the end of the year, the Met offered partial paychecks on a temporary basis for simply returning to the bargaining table. Members of the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents chorus members, dancers and others, accepted at the end of January and have been receiving paychecks for more than a month. The orchestra musicians voted to accept the offer this week. (The Met has locked out its stagehands, whose contract expired last year.) Nézet-Séguin wrote in his letter that he was relieved that both the musicians and the chorus members are now being paid, but added that “this is just a start.” The deal allows for temporary payments of up to $1,543 a week, less than half of what the musicians are typically paid. Nézet-Séguin was named the Met’s music director in 2016, when he was tapped to succeed James Levine, who led the company for four decades (Levine, who stepped down to an emeritus position because of health problems and was then fired two years later after an investigation into sexual abuse allegations, died this month.) “I implore the fiduciaries of this incredible house to urgently help to find a solution to compensate our artists appropriately,” Nézet-Séguin wrote. “We all realize the challenges, economic and otherwise, that the Met is facing, and therefore I ask for empathy, honesty and open communication throughout this process.”

Met Opera’s music director decries musicians’ unpaid furlough

Shortly after the premiere of the first episode of “Allen v. Farrow,” an HBO documentary series that reexamines Dylan Farrow’s decades-old sexual abuse allegations against filmmaker Woody Allen, her adoptive father, a spokesperson for Allen released a statement Sunday night slamming the series, calling it a “shoddy hit piece.”

Letty Aronson, Allen’s sister, sent the statement — attributed to a spokesperson — shortly after the first episode aired, on behalf of Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, the filmmaker’s wife and the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow. In 1992, Farrow, Allen’s longtime girlfriend, learned of the relationship between Allen and Previn when Previn was a first-year college student. That relationship is also the subject of scrutiny in the four-part docuseries.

Neither Allen nor Previn participated in the series, but it does include audio excerpts from Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing.”

“These documentarians had no interest in the truth,” the statement said. “Instead, they spent years surreptitiously collaborating with the Farrows and their enablers to put together a hatchet job riddled with falsehoods.”

On Monday, the publisher of Allen’s memoir, Skyhorse, raised another objection to the series: that the filmmakers had used snippets from the audiobook without permission. In a statement, the president and publisher of Skyhorse, Tony Lyons, said that the “unauthorized” use of the audio in the first episode was “clear, willful infringement under existing legal precedent.” 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-after-woody-allen-publisher-threatens-lawsuit-allen-v-farrow-makers-respond-365556" hreflang="en">After Woody Allen publisher threatens lawsuit, 'Allen v. Farrow' makers respond</a>

Lyons said in the statement that the filmmakers did not request permission to use the excerpts and that the publisher learned late last week that the episodes make “extensive” use of the audiobook. The publisher’s lawyer notified HBO on Friday that “if the use of the audiobook were anywhere near what we were hearing, it would constitute copyright infringement,” he said.

The memoir was originally set to be published last year by Grand Central Publishing, an imprint of Hachette Book Group until dozens of Hachette employees staged a walkout in protest and the publisher reneged. About two weeks later, his book was published by Arcade Publishing, an imprint of the independent publisher Skyhorse.

In response to the publisher’s objections, an HBO spokesperson provided a statement from the filmmakers, saying, “The creators of ‘Allen v. Farrow’ legally used limited audio excerpts from Woody Allen’s memoir in the series under the Fair Use doctrine.” The doctrine has been invoked to allow artists and journalists — including documentary filmmakers — to use limited amounts of copyrighted works for certain purposes, including using the material to illustrate an argument or to serve as the subject of a critique. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/mia-farrow-says-bringing-woody-allen-into-her-family-is-the-great-regret-of-her-life-365451">Mia Farrow says bringing Woody Allen into family is the 'great regret' of life</a>

Episode 1 includes extensive interviews with Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow, who accused Allen of sexual assault when she was 7 years old. It also included interviews with family and friends who said that even before Aug. 4, 1992 — the day that Dylan Farrow says Allen assaulted her — they witnessed behavior from Allen toward his daughter that they saw as inappropriate.

Allen has long denied the abuse allegations, arguing that Mia Farrow had coached Dylan to make the allegations after learning about his relationship with Previn.

In Sunday’s statement, Allen continued to deny the claims.

“As has been known for decades, these allegations are categorically false,” the statement said. “Multiple agencies investigated them at the time and found that, whatever Dylan Farrow may have been led to believe, absolutely no abuse had ever taken place.”

In later episodes, the series raises questions about one of those investigations, in particular: a report issued by the Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, at the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which found Dylan uncredible after interviewing the child nine times during a seven-month period. According to the series, all the contemporaneous interview notes from those sessions were destroyed when the final report was issued. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/woody-allen-mia-farrow-soon-yi-previn-dylan-farrow-a-timeline-365343" hreflang="en">Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn, Dylan Farrow: A Timeline</a>

Prosecutors in Connecticut, where Dylan Farrow says that Allen sexually assaulted her, declined to prosecute Allen in 1993. The state’s attorney said that he did so to spare Dylan the trauma of a trial but that he believed she had been molested.

The statement said that Allen and Previn were approached about the documentary less than two months ago and were “given only a matter of days” to respond to it. It also said it was “sadly unsurprising” that HBO was airing the series, considering a production deal it had made with Ronan Farrow, Dylan Farrow’s brother, who has spoken in support of his sister, including in the series. (Ronan Farrow, an investigative journalist who has reported extensively on sexual misconduct, has a deal with HBO to create investigative documentary specials, though he was not on the production team for “Allen v. Farrow.”)

Shortly after the premiere of the first episode of “Allen v. Farrow,” an HBO documentary series that reexamines Dylan Farrow’s decades-old sexual abuse allegations against filmmaker Woody Allen, her adoptive father, a spokesperson for Allen released a statement Sunday night slamming the series, calling it a “shoddy hit piece.

Shortly after the premiere of the first episode of “Allen v. Farrow,” an HBO documentary series that reexamines Dylan Farrow’s decades-old sexual abuse allegations against filmmaker Woody Allen, her adoptive father, a spokesperson for Allen released a statement Sunday night slamming the series, calling it a “shoddy hit piece.” Letty Aronson, Allen’s sister, sent the statement — attributed to a spokesperson — shortly after the first episode aired, on behalf of Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, the filmmaker’s wife and the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow. In 1992, Farrow, Allen’s longtime girlfriend, learned of the relationship between Allen and Previn when Previn was a first-year college student. That relationship is also the subject of scrutiny in the four-part docuseries. Neither Allen nor Previn participated in the series, but it does include audio excerpts from Allen’s recent memoir, “Apropos of Nothing.” “These documentarians had no interest in the truth,” the statement said. “Instead, they spent years surreptitiously collaborating with the Farrows and their enablers to put together a hatchet job riddled with falsehoods.” On Monday, the publisher of Allen’s memoir, Skyhorse, raised another objection to the series: that the filmmakers had used snippets from the audiobook without permission. In a statement, the president and publisher of Skyhorse, Tony Lyons, said that the “unauthorized” use of the audio in the first episode was “clear, willful infringement under existing legal precedent.” Also read: After Woody Allen publisher threatens lawsuit, 'Allen v. Farrow' makers respond Lyons said in the statement that the filmmakers did not request permission to use the excerpts and that the publisher learned late last week that the episodes make “extensive” use of the audiobook. The publisher’s lawyer notified HBO on Friday that “if the use of the audiobook were anywhere near what we were hearing, it would constitute copyright infringement,” he said. The memoir was originally set to be published last year by Grand Central Publishing, an imprint of Hachette Book Group until dozens of Hachette employees staged a walkout in protest and the publisher reneged. About two weeks later, his book was published by Arcade Publishing, an imprint of the independent publisher Skyhorse. In response to the publisher’s objections, an HBO spokesperson provided a statement from the filmmakers, saying, “The creators of ‘Allen v. Farrow’ legally used limited audio excerpts from Woody Allen’s memoir in the series under the Fair Use doctrine.” The doctrine has been invoked to allow artists and journalists — including documentary filmmakers — to use limited amounts of copyrighted works for certain purposes, including using the material to illustrate an argument or to serve as the subject of a critique. Also read: Mia Farrow says bringing Woody Allen into family is the 'great regret' of life Episode 1 includes extensive interviews with Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow, who accused Allen of sexual assault when she was 7 years old. It also included interviews with family and friends who said that even before Aug. 4, 1992 — the day that Dylan Farrow says Allen assaulted her — they witnessed behavior from Allen toward his daughter that they saw as inappropriate. Allen has long denied the abuse allegations, arguing that Mia Farrow had coached Dylan to make the allegations after learning about his relationship with Previn. In Sunday’s statement, Allen continued to deny the claims. “As has been known for decades, these allegations are categorically false,” the statement said. “Multiple agencies investigated them at the time and found that, whatever Dylan Farrow may have been led to believe, absolutely no abuse had ever taken place.” In later episodes, the series raises questions about one of those investigations, in particular: a report issued by the Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, at the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which found Dylan uncredible after interviewing the child nine times during a seven-month period. According to the series, all the contemporaneous interview notes from those sessions were destroyed when the final report was issued. Also read: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn, Dylan Farrow: A Timeline Prosecutors in Connecticut, where Dylan Farrow says that Allen sexually assaulted her, declined to prosecute Allen in 1993. The state’s attorney said that he did so to spare Dylan the trauma of a trial but that he believed she had been molested. The statement said that Allen and Previn were approached about the documentary less than two months ago and were “given only a matter of days” to respond to it. It also said it was “sadly unsurprising” that HBO was airing the series, considering a production deal it had made with Ronan Farrow, Dylan Farrow’s brother, who has spoken in support of his sister, including in the series. (Ronan Farrow, an investigative journalist who has reported extensively on sexual misconduct, has a deal with HBO to create investigative documentary specials, though he was not on the production team for “Allen v. Farrow.”)

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn call HBO docuseries a 'shoddy hit piece'

law-and-justice

Law And Justice, News on Law And Justice, stories on Law And Justice, articles on Law And Justice, Law And Justice stories at Wion, Law And Justice news, Law And Justice latest news

law and-justice

Gauhati HC grants bail in child marriage cases, says crackdown caused ‘havoc in private lives of people’

Met Opera’s music director decries musicians’ unpaid furlough

Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn call HBO docuseries a 'shoddy hit piece'