Hollywood is no stranger to reinvention, but Amazon is taking reinvention to the next level by handing the megaphone, script, and even the camera partially to artificial intelligence (AI).

Yes, you read that right. The streaming and studio giant is betting big on AI to reshape how movies and TV shows are made and insiders are buzzing with less excitement and more concern.

The AI Studio: Amazon’s secret lab

Behind the glossy Prime Video logo, a small, ambitious team called AI Studio is quietly trying to change filmmaking forever. Led by veteran executive Albert Cheng, the group is intentionally lean following Jeff Bezos’ famous “two pizza team” rule. This means the team is small enough to be fed with just two pizzas.

The AI Studio blends engineers, data scientists, and sprinkling of creative and business minds to create tools designed to speed up production, cut costs, streamline the creative process.

Also Read: Donald Trump says he won’t intervene in Netflix and Paramount Skydance fight for Warner Bros Discovery

Cheng calls it a “startup within a studio,” and the timing couldn’t be more interesting. Hollywood is grappling with skyrocketing production costs, making risky, big-budget projects harder to greenlight.

By using AI to handle some of the grunt work from pre-production planning to post-production tweaks Amazon hopes to produce more shows and films without inflating budgets.

Closed beta kicks off soon

Amazon plans to launch a closed beta of its AI tools in March inviting industry partners to test the technology in real-world production settings. The company expects to share results by May.

These tests will help the AI Studio figure out what actually works on a set, and how AI can complement human creativity rather than replace it.

The tools are designed to address what Cheng calls “the last mile” of production, the nitty-gritty details directors often wrestle with to maintain consistency and polish across shots.

Think battle scenes, massive crowd sequences, or even character continuity across multiple episodes. The studio’s first real-world example came with the second season of “House of David,” where director Jon Erwin used AI alongside live-action footage to create epic battle sequences expanding scale while keeping costs in check.

Humans are still in charge (until when though?)

While AI is at the center of the studio’s new strategy, Amazon is very clear. Humans will always lead the storytelling process. Writers, directors, actors, and designers will remain deeply involved at every stage. AI is being positioned as tool to enhance creativity, not replace it.

Cheng stresses, “We fundamentally believe that AI can accelerate, but it won’t replace, the innovation and the unique aspects that humans bring to create the work.”

This means AI might help with visual effects, script breakdowns, scene planning, or even subtle consistency fixes, but the core story, performances, and emotional beats will remain very human.

The AI Studio isn’t working in isolation. Amazon is collaborating with multiple AI providers and relying on Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud support. By integrating large language models and other AI tools into the workflow, the studio hopes to give creators a flexible toolkit for both pre- and post-production.

Cheng also emphasised intellectual property protection, ensuring AI-generated content doesn’t inadvertently get absorbed into other AI models, something studios are especially sensitive about in an era where content can be digitally copied or repurposed with ease.

Industry names are already on board: producers like Robert Stromberg (“Maleficent”), actors-turned-producers like Kunal Nayyar (“The Big Bang Theory”), and former Pixar/ILM animator Colin Brady are exploring how AI can be applied responsibly and creatively.

The studio is testing everything from virtual character modeling to scene composition, aiming for practical tools that directors and designers actually want to use.

The cost factor

Hollywood is expensive, and Amazon is feeling the pinch just like everyone else. “The cost of creating is so high that it really is hard to make more, and it really is hard to take great risk,” Cheng said.

AI, in this view, is a financial lifesaver. By fast-tracking certain tasks, the studio can produce more content, take on riskier stories, and experiment with ambitious projects that might have been financially impossible before.

But AI adoption hasn’t been painless. Amazon recently made headlines with its largest-ever layoffs; around 30,000 corporate jobs since last October, including cuts at Prime Video. The company partly cited AI-driven efficiencies as a reason.

Star power and AI anxiety

It’s not just execs who are watching AI closely. A-list actors including Emily Blunt have voiced concerns about AI’s growing presence in entertainment. The fear? AI versions of actors like digital replicas or AI-generated performances could someday reduce the demand for real humans.

Amazon, however, is emphasising a model where AI assists rather than substitutes. In practical terms, that means actors and writers continue to anchor the creative process. In the meantime AI helps with more tedious or technical aspects. But well, who knows?

The bigger picture

Amazon’s AI push is part of broader trend across Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Nearly every major tech and media company is experimenting with AI to improve workflows, cut costs, innovate creatively.

The next few months will be telling. The closed beta in March and results expected by May could set new benchmark for AI in Hollywood. If successful, Amazon could produce more ambitious shows and films faster (with equal number of layoffs, of course).

Six minors were arrested for allegedly gang-raping a minor girl after consuming adult content on mobile phones in Odisha’s Balangir district, Superintendent of Police (SP) Abhilash G said.

According to police, the incident occurred on December 27, 2025, but the family of the survivor filed a complaint after a video went viral on social media. The accused were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, following their arrest.

“An incident occurred in the Turkela police station area of Balangir district. There has been an allegation that some minors gang raped a minor girl after watching adult content. After the video went viral, the police arrested six minors on the complaint of the minor’s family. However, according to the complaint, all the arrested minors are known to the victim. This incident occurred on December 27. The minor and her family remained silent out of shame, but the video went viral a few days ago. Afterwards, the affected minor and her parents filed a complaint with the police station,” SP Abhilash G told reporters.

He added, “The police, the child protection officer and the Child Welfare Committee investigated the matter. Their mobile phones have been seized by the police. The accused have been arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.”
Inspector General (IG) Sambalpur, Himanshu Lal, said that the accused were influenced by adult content on mobile phones and social media.

“Our police have investigated this incident properly. These minors were misguided and influenced just by the adult content on mobile and social media. This is the root of the crime. While this is a sensitive issue, it is important to keep everyone aware, and the police will also work in this direction,” Sambalpur IG said.
Further details on the investigation are awaited.

Delhiites began Thursday morning with air quality in the ‘poor’ category, even as the India Meteorological Department (IMD) predicted a clear sky along with shallow fog.

As per the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the national Capital’s average Air Quality Index (AQI) stood at 279 at 6:00 am. The reading showed a noticeable improvement from Wednesday, when the city’s air quality was recorded in the ‘very poor’ range with an average AQI of 339.

Among the various monitoring locations, Lodhi Road, Narela and Dilshad Garden registered the best air quality levels on Thursday. These stations recorded AQI readings in the ‘moderate’ category. Data from 39 monitoring stations across Delhi showed that 18 stations remained in the ‘very poor’ range, while the rest reported ‘poor’ air quality.

Several parts of the city continued to experience ‘very poor’ pollution levels. Anand Vihar recorded an AQI of 332, Bawana stood at 306, and Ashok Vihar registered 320. Other areas with similarly high pollution levels included Dwarka Sector 8 (328), RK Puram (314), Rohini (322) and Patparganj (307), according to CPCB data.

At the same time, some pockets of the capital witnessed comparatively better air quality. Aya Nagar recorded an AQI of 214, while Chandni Chowk stood at 218. Sonia Vihar also showed improvement with an AQI of 299, though these readings still remained within the ‘poor’ category.

DTU also recorded ‘poor’ air quality with an AQI of 264. Other locations such as Mandir Marg (214), Najafgarh (258) and CRRI Mathura Road (226) reported similar pollution levels, remaining in the ‘poor’ range.

Narela, however, performed better than many other parts of Delhi, recording an AQI of 195 and entering the ‘moderate’ category, as per CPCB figures.

Under the AQI classification system, readings between 0 and 50 are considered ‘good’, 51 to 100 ‘satisfactory’, 101 to 200 ‘moderate’, 201 to 300 ‘poor’, 301 to 400 ‘very poor’ and 401 to 500 ‘severe’.

The CPCB had reported on Wednesday that the overall air quality in Delhi was in the ‘very poor’ range, with the city’s average AQI recorded at 339.

Looking ahead, the IMD has forecast partly cloudy skies along with shallow fog during morning hours over the next five days. No weather alert has been issued for Delhi during this period.

From February 8, moderate fog is expected to return. The weather department has not released any warning for the coming days. Temperatures are likely to remain largely stable, with maximum temperatures expected to stay between 22 degree Celsius and 24 degree Celsius, while minimum temperatures may range from 8 degree Celsius to 11 degree Celsius.

Meanwhile, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) announced on Wednesday that Kaka Nagar has become the first residential colony to adopt a fully mechanised and dust-free cleaning system. NDMC Chairman Keshav Chandra said the initiative is aimed at improving air quality and promoting sustainable sanitation practices in urban areas.

Across northern India, cold wave conditions and fog continued on Thursday, with the IMD issuing warnings of dense to very dense fog in several states during morning and night hours. The persistent fog has been accompanied by a sharp drop in temperatures, especially across the Indo-Gangetic plains, where minimum temperatures have fallen by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius below normal.

According to the IMD, dense fog is very likely at isolated places in Uttar Pradesh. Dense fog is also expected over Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Madhya Pradesh. In Uttarakhand, the IMD has flagged the possibility of ground frost at multiple locations, which may affect crops and also create difficulties for early morning commuters.

The IMD further stated that minimum temperatures across northwest India are unlikely to witness any major change in the next few days. However, Uttar Pradesh may see a gradual fall of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. In central and eastern parts of the country, night temperatures are expected to decline over the next 48 to 72 hours before settling.

Under the influence of an active western disturbance, isolated to scattered rainfall and snowfall is likely over Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand on February 5 and 6. The IMD has issued yellow alerts for these regions, advising caution due to slippery roads and reduced visibility in higher altitude areas.

The Delhi Police Special Cell has arrested Baljinder, an ambulance driver and his associate Rohit alias Kirat in connection with the incident of pro-Khalistan slogans found written at two locations in Delhi before January 26th.

The cell reported that the entire plan was hatched in Canada, and Sikhs for Justice founder Gurpatwant Singh Pannun had offered Rs 2 lakh to the two accused to carry it out. The mastermind of the plan was in direct contact with Pannun.

“A close associate of Sikhs for Justice founder Gurpatwant Singh Pannun had hired the two accused to carry out the act. The entire plan was hatched in Canada, and Pannun had offered Rs. 2 lakh for this task. The mastermind, a resident of Tilak Nagar, had gone to Canada a few days before January 26th and was in direct contact with Pannun,” the Delhi Police Special Cell said.

The Delhi Police Special Cell had registered an FIR against Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on January 23rd for allegedly issuing threats to create unrest in the national capital ahead of Republic Day on January 26, officials said.
The case was registered under Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), and 61 (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

According to police sources, Pannun had released a video on social media claiming that his “sleeper cells” had put up pro-Khalistan posters in Rohini and Dabri areas of the national capital.

However, upon verification, the Special Cell found no pro-Khalistani posters at the locations mentioned by Pannun.

Hold Onto Me Review: Summer in Cyprus has never looked so bittersweet. In the sun-soaked world of 11-year-old Iris, played for the first time by Maria Petrova, the warm, carefree days along the coast are suddenly interrupted by grief, confusion, and an unexpected reunion. Her grandfather has passed away, and her estranged father, Aris (Christos Passalis), is back in town for the funeral. But Iris isn’t willing to let him slip away again.

Also Read: Barbara Forever Review: Love, politics, lesbian iconography that made Barbara Hammer a cinematic revolutionary

This is the premise of ‘Hold Onto Me’ (Greek: ‘Κράτα Με’), the Greek-language film that just had its world premiere at the Sundance World Cinema Dramatic Competition and won the Audience Award. Directed by Cypriot filmmaker Myrsini Aristidou, the story blends tender childhood memories, family drama, touch of mischief, all framed against the island’s stunning coastal scenery.

The girl who won’t back down

Iris is not your typical 11-year-old. She’s tough, independent, street-smart. With her mother off on holiday with a new boyfriend and her older brother Fivos (Nicolas Metaxas) barely in the picture, Iris has had to learn how to navigate life on her own. Her closest companion is Danae (Jenny Sallo), a teen more interested in boys than babysitting, leaving Iris to explore the world (and her emotions) largely alone.

What makes Iris so compelling is her fearlessness and vulnerability in equal measure. Petrova’s performance is subtle yet commanding. It carries almost the entire weight of the film. She’s steely, mischievous, real. Whether she’s confronting her father or scheming with him, Iris feels like a real child navigating world of grown-up confusion.

Father and daughter, rewritten

Enter Aris, Iris’s estranged father. He’s not a picture-perfect dad by any means. He’s rough around the edges and more interested in selling his father’s belongings than reconnecting with the daughter he abandoned years ago. But as the story unfolds, so does his heart.

The dynamic between Iris and Aris is fascinating because it’s messy, awkward, completely believable. Their relationship doesn’t start with hugs or tearful confessions. Instead it begins with Iris convincing him to let her tag along despite his repeated attempts to shoo her away. She’s persistent, clever. Eventually, he starts to soften, first in small, cunning ways (using her charm to swindle strangers), then in truly touching moments that reveal the father he could have been all along.

Christos Passalis delivers a quietly mesmerising performance showing a man with layers of flaws and fragments of love (and of course, toxic parenting).

Mischief, crime, unexpected bonds

Iris and Aris reconnect in unusual ways. Their bonding includes petty crimes and small schemes, which is not your classic wholesome father-daughter journey. But it works, because it’s a film. Iris is no angel, nor is her father, and Aristidou doesn’t pretend otherwise. Their flawed humanity makes the story relatable. It’s a tale where forgiveness is earned slowly, love is complicated, childhood resilience shines through even in morally gray circumstances.

The storytelling is quite naturalistic. Early on, the audience might not even realise that Aris is Iris’s father. Their initial awkwardness combined with minimal exposition allows their chemistry to develop. Organically.

As film progresses, it introduces subtle thriller element that adds tension without breaking the emotional core. Risks and consequences of their actions are explored. It shows even in a seemingly idyllic summer, life is never without stakes. These sequences amplify the emotional payoff.

Should you watch this film?

You can call ‘Hold Onto Me’ a meditation on fractured families, childhood independence, and the small yet profound ways humans reconnect. Aristidou has a signature style. It is evident in her earlier shorts like ‘Semele’ (2015) and ‘Aria’ (2017). They also explore young girls navigating complex relationships with their fathers. Here she expands that vision into a full-length feature.

For a first feature, ‘Hold Onto Me’ is remarkably confident. It doesn’t rely on spectacle or melodrama. It’s quiet, intimate, and emotionally precise. Yes, the middle section loses a bit of pace. But the storytelling and performances recover quickly.

Aristidou’s Cyprus is both familiar and fresh. Her characters flawed but lovable. Her narrative is tender but not sentimental.

Yes, life is messy, love is complicated. Sometimes the smallest acts like holding onto someone, not letting go, make the biggest difference. That’s the moral of the story. That’s it!

The makers of Mirzapur: The Movie have officially announced that the much-awaited film adaptation of the popular crime drama will release in theatres on September 4. The announcement was made on Thursday via Excel Entertainment’s official Instagram handle, giving fans their first clear look at the film’s cinematic scale.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Excel Entertainment (@excelmovies)

A poster that sets the tone

The newly unveiled poster immediately signals the franchise’s trademark violence and power struggles. Set against a sprawling golden desert, it features a convoy of rugged SUVs racing through the dunes, kicking up thick clouds of dust. A dark trail resembling blood cuts through the frame, underscoring the brutality the series is known for.

The title MIRZAPUR appears in bold, cracked red lettering, with THE MOVIE positioned beneath it. The release date, September 4, 2026 is prominently highlighted.

The caption accompanying the post read, “Ab dekhiye bhaukaal bade parde par,” inviting audiences to experience the world of Mirzapur on the big screen.

Also Read: Siddhant Chaturvedi opens up about his UP roots, language struggles and finding his voice

From web series to film adaptation

Set in the Purvanchal region of Uttar Pradesh, Mirzapur centres on Akhandanand “Kaleen” Tripathi, a powerful crime lord whose grip over the district fuels an unending cycle of violence, ambition and betrayal.

The series has remained one of India’s most popular crime dramas since its debut.

Returning faces and new additions

The film brings back key cast members including Pankaj Tripathi, Ali Fazal, Shweta Tripathi, Rasika Dugal and Divyenndu, while also introducing new faces such as Jitendra Kumar, Sonal Chouhan and Ravi Kishan.

The earlier seasons featured an ensemble cast that included Divyendu Sharma, Vikrant Massey, Kulbhushan Kharbanda and others, with subsequent seasons adding actors like Vijay Varma and Isha Talwar.

Also Read: Shriya Pilgaonkar returns back from the dead as Sweety in ‘Mirzapur: The Film’

Shoot wrapped earlier this year

The film wrapped production on February 1. Announcing the shoot wrap, Shweta Tripathi shared a clapperboard image on social media, followed by a group picture of the cast and crew, captioned, “It’s a wrap Mirzapur The Movie.”

Produced by Excel Entertainment, Mirzapur: The Movie marks the franchise’s first theatrical outing, expanding its gritty universe beyond the streaming space.

Also Read: ‘Mirzapur: The Movie’ wraps Varanasi shoot: Ali Fazal, Shweta Tripathi, Pankaj Tripathi share their journey

Disney has done something fans have been dreaming about for decades: brought back ‘The Muppet Show’ for its 50th anniversary, and in a way that actually feels like the real deal.

No over-the-top modern updates, no unnecessary CGI, just Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie, and yes… Rizzo the Rat, back where they belong; on a rickety old stage.

Also Read: ‘Love Story’ on JFK Jr & Carolyn Bessette explores tragic American romance | Cast, episodes, release date

It’s been decades since Jim Henson’s puppets first charmed the world, but this special proves one thing that some things are timeless. And some things, apparently, deserve a little more spotlight than ever.

Bringing back the originals (and doing it right)

Disney’s past attempts at reviving The Muppets were…well, let’s say they were inconsistent. From half-hearted reboots to forgettable guest appearances, it seemed like no one could capture that exact Henson magic.

But this time, the formula is simple. Put the puppets where they shine best: a theater stage with big, messy sketches, celebrity guests, and pure, unfiltered heart.

Critics are loving it. Rotten Tomatoes gives the special a perfect 100% score, matching the original run from 1976-1981. Audiences? They’re even more thrilled, giving it a 97% rating compared to the 91% of the old series.

For those who need a refresher, ‘The Muppet Show’ originally aired from 1976 to 1981, producing five seasons and 120 episodes. Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Jerry Nelson, Richard Hunt, and Dave Goelz delivered a kind of vaudeville for TV.

Seth Rogen, nostalgia, and the perfect revival

Enter Seth Rogen, the man who grew up with these puppets and now has brought them back exactly as they were. Critics agree it’s a triumph. But more than that, it’s a love letter to every fan who ever squealed at Kermit’s banjo, cringed at Fozzie’s jokes, or swooned at Miss Piggy’s diva antics.

The Muppets aren’t just puppets. They’re cultural icons. Since debuting in 1955, they’ve appeared in ‘Sesame Street’, ‘Saturday Night Live’, ‘The Muppet Show’, and numerous movies.

The 2026 special brings him back front and center. After teasing appearances on social media earlier this year, Rizzo now stars in a musical sketch with Sabrina Carpenter.

A stage full of mishaps, exactly what fans love

That’s the beauty of ‘The Muppet Show’. Chaos is part of the charm. Gonzo on rocket rollerblades? Check. Miss Piggy losing her wig mid-sketch? Check. Fozzie bombing a joke? Double check. Every Muppet faces disaster, and it’s delightful. Except Rizzo. He handles mayhem like a pro, a sly smile and quick quip always ready.

Rizzo may be back, but he isn’t performed by Whitmire anymore. Bradley Freeman Jr. now brings the rat to life, capturing the exact tone, timing, and personality that fans loved. The transition is seamless.

Disney finally cracked the code: don’t overcomplicate the Muppets. Let them be messy, heartfelt, funny, and unpredictable. Sprinkle in some celebrity guests, stage mishaps, and a little musical magic, and you’ve got television gold.

Donald Trump is staying on the sidelines. The US president, who at one point hinted he might weigh in on the blockbuster media fight between Netflix and Paramount Skydance over Warner Bros. Discovery, has now decided to sit this one out.

In a candid chat with NBC News’ Tom Llamas ahead of the 2026 Super Bowl, Trump admitted he hasn’t been involved and is letting the Justice Department handle the drama.

Also Read: Netflix acquires Warner Bros: Will this $72 billion deal save or shatter Hollywood?

“I haven’t been involved,” Trump said. “I must say, I guess I’m considered to be a very strong president. I’ve been called by both sides. It’s the two sides, but I’ve decided I shouldn’t be involved. The Justice Department will handle it.”

One winner, no surprises

Trump didn’t hold back on acknowledging the tension. He recognised both companies’ competing claims while reminding that, in the end, only one will come out on top.

“There’s a theory that one of the companies is too big and it shouldn’t be allowed to do it, and the other company is saying something else,” Trump said. “They’re beating the hell out of each other. And there’ll be a winner.”

His comments mark a sharp shift from last month, when he had suggested he might personally get involved in deciding whether Netflix should be allowed to snatch up Warner Bros.

The deal that has everyone talking

The media world has been buzzing since December, when Netflix, co-led by Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, announced plans to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery including HBO and HBO Max for a jaw-dropping $82 billion.

But Paramount Skydance, led by David Ellison (and backed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison), countered with a hostile $108.7 billion offer for the entire company, cable networks included. Notably, the Ellisons are known Trump supporters.

Warner Bros. ultimately rejected Paramount’s offers, preferring Netflix’s bid. That move triggered a lawsuit from Paramount Skydance, demanding more transparency on how Warner Bros. made its decision. Netflix quickly sweetened its offer, turning it into an all-cash deal putting even more pressure on Paramount.

Trump’s Hollywood pivot

Just a few weeks ago, Trump sounded more curious than hands-off. When asked if Netflix should get the green light, he said:

“Well, that’s the question. They have a very big market share, and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot. So I don’t know. That’s going to be for some economists to tell. … And I’ll be involved in that decision, too, but they have a very big market share.”

Clearly, that’s changed. The president now sees the media battle as a Justice Department matter leaving the streaming giants to duke it out on their own. Or is he just playing?

American Doctor Review: If you thought documentaries were all calm narration and polite interviews, Poh Si Teng’s ‘American Doctor’ is here to blow that illusion apart. From the first frame, you are thrown into Gaza’s war-torn streets, where bombs fall, hospitals crumble, and ordinary civilians, mostly women and children, become unintended targets of political warfare.

The film follows three American doctors, Dr Feroze Sidhwa, a trauma surgeon from California; Dr Mark Perlmutter, an orthopedic surgeon from North Carolina; and Dr Thaer Ahmad, an emergency physician from Chicago with Palestinian roots. They volunteer to treat patients amidst the chaos.

Also Read: Barbara Forever Review: Love, politics, lesbian iconography that made Barbara Hammer a cinematic revolutionary

And trust me, this is not your average “war documentary”. There’s no gentle soft-focus imagery or blurred gore. Teng’s camera shows everything raw, unfiltered, unflinching. By the end, you feel every thud, every cry, every life lost in a hospital that was supposed to be a sanctuary.

The human story behind the headlines

At its heart, ‘American Doctor’ is not a political screed. It’s a story of human decency, of doctors who risk their own lives to save strangers. But make no mistake, the politics are impossible to ignore. As the camera follows these physicians, you see not just the physical wounds of war but the moral injury inflicted on everyone caught in its crossfire.

Perlmutter, with his sharp Southern candor, openly condemns Israel’s military actions and Netanyahu’s far-right government. Sidhwa, the Zoroastrian-American surgeon, quietly carries a burden of loneliness and survivor’s guilt. And Ahmad’s struggle is deeply personal. He is born in Chicago to Palestinian parents. And here, he faces bureaucratic hurdles and repeated refusals to enter Gaza, desperate to help the people of his heritage.

Yet all three share one thing in common. They have a commitment to healing in the most horrifying circumstances imaginable. Watching them work, it’s impossible not to feel their grief for the civilians they try to save.

Of and off Gaza

The film’s most harrowing moments are the hospital bombings. Teng spares nothing. And, we see the first blast hit Nasser Hospital, then the second strike moments later, injuring healthcare workers who had rushed in to help the wounded.

These sequences are gut-wrenching, but they’re also crucial. As Dr. Perlmutter says in the film: “You’re not dignifying them unless you let their memory, their bodies, tell the story of this trauma… You have the responsibility, as I do, to tell the truth.”

This is journalism as advocacy. This a call for the world to see what’s really happening beyond soundbites and political spin.

Three doctors, three stories

Perlmutter has seen other war zones, but nothing shook him like Gaza. The endless casualties, the bombed-out hospitals, the helplessness; it left him distant from his partner back home. In Gaza, he’s a force of nature, smuggling antibiotics past security, rushing into disaster zones, and forging bonds with Palestinian colleagues. His anger at the Israeli regime is blunt, often peppered with colorful expletives that feel more human than political.

Yet beneath that fire is a deep moral urgency. He doesn’t just treat wounds. He bears witness, using his voice to confront what he sees as systemic injustice.

Sidhwa brings a quieter, more introspective energy. Having worked with Perlmutter before, he shares the same commitment to Gaza but carries a heavier personal burden. The film shows moments of vulnerability. Dating feels impossible. Normal life seems distant. The trauma of what he witnesses shadows every decision. For him, volunteering is both calling and weight. This perhaps is a paradox of purpose and pain.

Yet Sidhwa’s eloquence and calm resolve shine through. He repeatedly questions targeting of hospitals and challenges viewers to confront the uncomfortable reality of money, politics, indifference all contribute to civilian suffering.

Ahmad’s story is the most intimate. Though born in Chicago, his Palestinian heritage ties him to the land, to the people, and to the urgent need for care. The documentary follows his frustrating struggle to reach Gaza, blocked repeatedly by Israeli authorities.

At home, he’s a dedicated father and husband, but his heart is with the patients he cannot yet touch. His perseverance and determination are heartbreaking and inspiring.

Smuggling supplies and braving bombs

One of the film’s eye-opening threads is the practical reality of humanitarian work in Gaza. The doctors must smuggle antibiotics and surgical supplies through checkpoints and face constant threat of denial or detention.

Hospitals are hit repeatedly. Healthcare workers (over 1,700 since October 2023) have been killed. Souble-tap attack on Nasser Hospital is emblematic of this brutal reality.

Every operation, every patient treated, is defiance of the system that seeks to restrict aid. Teng’s camera doesn’t flinch at the gore, blood or tears.

Political subtext that can’t be ignored

‘American Doctor’ is primarily a humanitarian story. Its political undertones are undeniable. The actions of Israel’s army, support of the US government, global indifference to civilian suffering all come under scrutiny. Sidhwa, Perlmutter, Ahmad provide first-hand accounts of destruction of lives shattered by military aggression.

Sidhwa’s words at Sundance are particularly striking. “Americans deserve the opportunity to know what their money is being used for… Just to decide. ‘Do you really want this being done?’ I’m pretty sure the answer is ‘no’.”

The film doesn’t preach. It shows. And by doing so, it invites viewers to make moral and political judgments for themselves.

The emotional toll

One of the documentary’s most haunting elements is its depiction of the doctors’ emotional journeys. War is brutal, but the aftermath lingers. Perlmutter returns home struggling to reconnect with loved ones. Sidhwa faces isolation and loneliness. Ahmad deals with frustration and heartbreak at obstacles.

This isn’t just footage of medical procedures. It’s a window into trauma and personal cost of empathy in a world gone mad. Humanitarian work is never easy. And those who do it carry invisible scars alongside visible ones they treat.

Poh Si Teng’s direction is masterful in balancing realism with narrative clarity. The unblurred raw footage ensures audience experiences chaos as it happens. There’s just unvarnished truth of modern war and people who risk everything to alleviate its suffering. By comparing some scenes to dystopian fiction, this film shows disturbing truth.

Watching ‘American Doctor’ can be an emotional journey. It’s heartbreaking… often hard to watch. But it is an essential viewing. Teng’s documentary does what few films dare. It refuses to soften reality, yet never loses sight of humanity.

In a world increasingly numb to human suffering where we are watching the genocide televised, ‘American Doctor’ surely is a clarion call to see, to care, and to act.

The documentary premiered at Sundance 2026.

This week’s Grammy drama isn’t about a wardrobe malfunction or a surprise duet. It’s Billie Eilish telling it like it is, and her brother Finneas isn’t holding back either.

When Billie Eilish walked up to accept Song of the Year trophy for ‘Wildflower’ at the 2026 Grammys, she didn’t just smile and thank her team. Nope, she used her moment in the spotlight to make a bold political statement. In front of millions, Billie said, “no one is illegal on stolen land… and, yeah… f*** ICE.”

Also Read: Grammys 2026 Highlights: Kendrick Lamar, Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, Dalai Lama define the night | Major winners

Her speech didn’t just shock the audience. It lit up social media and grabbed headlines everywhere. Fans loved it, critics rolled their eyes, but Billie’s point was clear that she isn’t afraid to mix art with activism.

Finneas strikes back on Instagram Threads

Standing by his sister every step of the way, Finneas hopped on Instagram Threads to defend her. He called out “very powerful old white men” who were apparently upset about Billie’s speech. And then came the mic-drop line: “We can literally see your names in the Epstein files.”

Billie wasn’t the only artist making waves with political commentary this year. Bad Bunny, the Puerto Rican superstar, took the stage with his own pointed message while accepting the Best Música Urbana Album award for ‘DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS’.

Before giving thanks, Bad Bunny told the audience, “ICE out. We’re not savage, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens. We are humans and we are Americans.” He continued with a reminder that love is stronger than hate: “If we fight, we have to do it with love. We don’t hate them. We love our people. We love our family.”

What’s undeniable is that Billie Eilish, Finneas, and Bad Bunny are part of a growing group of artists using their fame to push for change. Awards shows used to be safe, scripted events. But now, they’re stages for social messages, personal beliefs, and unapologetic honesty.

The US Drug Enforcement Administration on Thursday said it collaborated with Government of India law enforcement partners to identify, investigate, and dismantle dangerous criminal organizations that engage in these types of illegal drug trafficking operations.

The US Drug Enforcement Administration, with the cooperation of the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, announced the seizure of more than 200 website domains tied to an India-based transnational criminal organization (TCO) working within the United States and allegedly responsible for at least six fatal and four non-fatal overdoses. The TCO tied to these illegal online pharmacies has been under investigation by DEA’s Rocky Mountain Field Division since 2022.

Beginning on January 27, 2026, DEA field offices throughout the United States conducted multiple operations leading to the arrest of four individuals along with the issuance of five Immediate Suspension Orders (ISO) and one Order to Show Cause (OTSC), both of which are administrative actions taken against DEA registrants in order to protect the public from dangers to public health or safety.

Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), DEA regulates the handling, storage, and distribution of controlled substances in the custody of pharmacies. The CSA stipulates that pharmacies are only authorized to dispense controlled substances upon receipt of a valid prescription, issued for a legitimate medical purpose, by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his or her professional practice.

Investigators determined the operators of these online pharmacies and their co-conspirators were illegally dispensing and shipping diverted medications, without valid prescriptions, to customers throughout the United States, violating the CSA and dangerously infiltrating a closed system of distribution intended to keep patients safe.
Over the course of this investigation, DEA identified thousands of customers who purchased medication through these online pharmacies. Subsequently, DEA has sent more than 20,000 letters to the public requesting information in support of this ongoing investigation.

There’s a new streaming king in town! Aditya Dhar’s ‘Dhurandhar’ has stormed Netflix, racking up numbers that left even the biggest names like ‘Animal’, ‘Fighter’, and ‘Pushpa 2: The Rule’ in the dust.

Premiering on January 30, the spy thriller hit 7.6 million views in its first weekend setting a new record for post-theatrical Hindi releases. It’s the first Indian film to cross the 7-million mark right out of the gate on a streaming platform.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Netflix India (@netflix_in)

The film doesn’t skimp on star power. Ranveer Singh leads the cast as an undercover Indian intelligence agent with heavyweights like Akshaye Khanna, Sanjay Dutt, Arjun Rampal, and R Madhavan rounding out the ensemble.

Also Read: ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’ teaser X (Twitter) reactions – fans say ‘chuna laga diya’ as video reuses part 1 montage

Produced under Jio Studios and B62 Studios by Jyoti Deshpande, Aditya Dhar, and Lokesh Dhar, the film promises both glitzy action and political intrigue.

Why everyone is talking about it

Dhurandhar’s Netflix numbers aren’t just about views. They’re about timing and hype. After a box-office run that already turned heads, the digital premiere gave audiences worldwide easy access to the action, propelling the film past established blockbusters within just seven days.

Whether it’s Ranveer’s on-screen intensity, political thriller backdrop, or sheer scale of production, the film has become talking point for cinephiles and casual viewers alike.

Love it or leave it, ‘Dhurandhar’ has made its mark. And with the first part of a two-film series now streaming, fans are already speculating about what comes next in this high-stakes saga.

Actor Siddhant Chaturvedi, who is preparing for the release of his upcoming film Do Deewane Seher Mein, recently spoke candidly about the formative years that shaped both his personality and his craft.

Also Read: Lust Stories 3 on Netflix: Release date, cast, directors and complete recap of seasons 1 and 2

Siddhant Chaturvedi reflects on his early years

At the film’s trailer launch in Mumbai on Wednesday, the actor reflected on his upbringing in Uttar Pradesh and the journey of finding confidence through language and self-expression.

Also Read: Accused teaser OUT: Netflix’s new psychological thriller promises a tense story of reputation, doubt and consequences

Roots that shaped his worldview

Hailing from Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, Siddhant spoke about growing up with Bhojpuri as his first language and how his roots continue to inform his worldview. He shared that when he first arrived in Mumbai, adapting to the language of cinema was not immediate or easy.

“For the first five to six years, even my Hindi was broken. I used to speak in Bhojpuri,” the actor said, adding that the experience was deeply personal and mirrored the journey of many who migrate to big cities carrying regional identities.

Also Read: Nancy Meyers returns to direction after 11 years, eyes Penélope Cruz and Owen Wilson

When language becomes a confidence barrier

Siddhant pointed out how language can quietly influence self-belief, especially in unfamiliar environments. From navigating broken Hindi to slowly picking up English, he recalled becoming conscious of pronunciation differences, such as the commonly discussed ‘sa’ and ‘sha’ sounds, nuances that often go unspoken but affect everyday interactions.

“It’s not about whether you’re from UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat, the North-East or even Nepal. There’s always a language barrier, and when you’re conscious of it, it somewhere affects your confidence,” he shared.

Also Read: ‘Love Story’ on JFK Jr & Carolyn Bessette explores tragic American romance | Cast, episodes, release date

Learning without losing oneself

What stood out was Siddhant’s emphasis on learning through lived experience rather than formal training. He spoke about adapting gradually, correcting himself over time, and finding balance without erasing where he came from. In a lighter moment, he recalled how falling in love for the first time with someone from Chennai who spoke fluent English, unexpectedly became both an emotional and linguistic learning curve.

Also Read: Drew Barrymore says she’d never date a man in his 20s: ‘It just feels wrong’

Looking ahead

Do Deewane Seher Mein is slated for a theatrical release on February 20, 2026. As Siddhant continues to take on varied roles, his reflections offer a reminder that growth in cinema is often as much about personal evolution as it is about performance.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Zee Studios (@zeestudiosofficial)

Also Read: Barbara Forever Review: Love, politics, lesbian iconography that made Barbara Hammer a cinematic revolutionary

Fireworks continued on Thursday as both Houses of Parliament reconvened for the ongoing Budget Session. While the Lok Sabha today adopted the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, the debate on the same is underway in the Rajya Sabha, and the PM’s reply is scheduled for 5 pm.

Did Congress MPs plan to attack PM Modi in Parliament?

Details have started to trickle in on why PM Modi did not reply to the debate on the President’s address in the Lok Sabha. Sources said, according to news agency ANI, that the Congress was physically planning to attack PM Modi in the Lower House yesterday. Women MPs belonging to the Congress party were sent as a cover measure for this, sources said further, adding that the Lok Sabha Speaker decided to adjourn the House despite the Prime Minister being in Parliament and available to address the Lok Sabha.

No PM reply in Lok Sabha, House adopts Motion of Thanks

In an unprecedented development, the Lok Sabha on Thursday adopted the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address with a voice vote without Prime Minister Narendra Modi replying to the debate. The PM was due to speak in the Lok Sabha but could not deliver his address amid repeated Opposition protests. Last evening also, the PM could not reply to the debate due to the ruckus created by the Opposition.

The Lok Sabha earlier reconvened at 11 am but was immediately adjourned as opposition MPs continued to protest over various issues. The Lower House later resumed proceedings at 12 noon and was again adjourned till 2 pm after adopting the motion amid sloganeering by Opposition members.

PM reply on Motion of Thanks in RS at 5 pm

It has been reported that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will reply to the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address in the Rajya Sabha around 5 pm today.

Abodh balak jibe and a fiery exchange

In the Rajya Sabha, a fiery exchange of words took place between the Treasury and Opposition benches.

Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, raised the issue of Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi not being allowed to speak in the Lower House. When he was asked not to raise the matter of the other House, Kharge said he had the right to do so. “Parliament means Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The LoP, Lok Sabha, wanted to speak on the country’s interests, but was not allowed to speak. How can you run the House like this?”

Union Minister JP Nadda countered Kharge and argued that the LoP should know that the proceedings of the Lok Sabha cannot be discussed in the Rajya Sabha. Nadda also advised Kharge to not let an abodh balak (ignorant child) hold the Congress party and Parliament hostage, apparently referring to Rahul Gandhi.

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju also said, “Today, we all are expecting that all MPs will follow rules and traditions of the House. All MPs are waiting to hear the PM’s speech today. If Congress doesn’t want to listen to the PM’s address, but all other members do. Your LoP Lok Sabha doesn’t follow the House rules.”

When Nadda said PM Modi is ready anytime to answer any question in the Lok Sabha, Kharge responded and said the BJP doesn’t let people talk and has even shackled the PM. Calling members of the ruling party as “bound labourers,” Kharge said the Opposition doesn’t “lynch or abuse” others like the BJP does.

To this reference, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman objected and said that while she respects the Opposition, she wants the word “lynching” to be removed from Kharge’s speech.

What happened in Parliament yesterday

The discussion could not be completed on Wednesday as continuous protests by Opposition members forced multiple adjournments in the Lok Sabha. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s scheduled reply to the debate was deferred as a result.

The Lok Sabha was first adjourned soon after it met, following slogans and protests by Opposition MPs over the suspension of eight members. The Speaker attempted to restore order several times, but the disruptions continued through the day.

A brief Question Hour was conducted for five minutes. Only one starred question and its supplementaries were taken up. Soon after, the House was adjourned again — first till noon, then 2 pm, and finally till 5 pm. With the uproar continuing, the Speaker adjourned the House for the day.

The standoff began when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was not allowed to refer to an article citing an unpublished memoir of former Army Chief General MM Naravane on the 2020 India-China standoff. The protests intensified after eight Opposition MPs were suspended for the remainder of the Budget Session on Tuesday.

Those suspended include Congress MPs Manickam Tagore, Prashant Yadaorao Padole, Amarinder Singh Raja Warring, Hibi Eden, Gurjeet Singh Aujla, Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy, and Dean Kuriakose, along with CPI(M) MP S Venkatesan.

India-US trade deal adds to Opposition push for adjournment motion

The fresh round of disruptions comes as the Opposition sharpens its attack on the recently announced India-US trade agreement.

Congress MP Manish Tewari on Thursday submitted an adjournment motion notice in the Lok Sabha for the second consecutive day, seeking a discussion on the deal. He urged the House to suspend Question Hour, Zero Hour and all listed business to take up what he described as an urgent matter of grave public importance.

In his notice, Tewari referred to a statement reportedly issued by the President of the United States claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had agreed to halt purchases of Russian oil, increase oil imports from the United States and Venezuela, reduce Indian tariffs and non-tariff barriers to zero, and commit to procuring over $500 billion worth of American goods.

Why Wednesday’s debate broke down, and what lies ahead

Outside Parliament, the suspended MPs staged a protest, holding placards accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of being “compromised.” The remarks echoed Rahul Gandhi’s earlier comments during media interactions on the India-US trade agreement.

Samajwadi Party MP Anand Bhadauria defended Gandhi, saying he represented “the voice of the people who voted against the BJP.” He accused the ruling party of attempting to silence the Opposition whenever national security issues are raised in Parliament.

In the Lok Sabha, the Motion of Thanks was moved by Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal and seconded by BJP MP Tejasvi Surya. Eighteen hours have been allotted for the discussion.

According to the List of Business, the House is also scheduled to take up discussions on the Union Budget 2026–27. BJP MP Suresh Gopi is expected to make a statement on the implementation of recommendations of the Standing Committee on Petroleum and Natural Gas related to crude oil import policy.

The Budget Session will run for 65 days, with 30 sittings, and conclude on April 2. Parliament will adjourn for a recess on February 13 and reconvene on March 9, allowing Standing Committees to examine the Demands for Grants of various ministries.

Recently, a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya individuals from custody was filed in the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India has rightly asked if the court was expected to “roll out a red carpet” for illegal entrants and questioned whether the individuals had legal status or a government order declaring them as refugees. This query gives birth to many legal and legitimate questions. And, of course, it is very difficult to answer those. Is habeas corpus applicable to foreigners in India? If not, is it not contrary to core constitutional values.

Are Rohingyas entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty)? Can any person on Indian soil be subjected to inhuman treatment? This controversy has many dimensions within the ambit of past practices of the Supreme Court under Article 21 and international law. While the Constitution does not use the exact term “human rights”, these rights (liberty, life etc.) align with international human rights standards, making them justiciable claims against the state. India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol and therefore, no legal status has been granted to the Rohingyas under Indian law.

But the principle of non-refoulement (not returning refugees to danger) is considered part of customary international law, obligating nearly all states to uphold it. A refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country. Nor can a refugee be forcibly returned to their home country or any other country where they could face persecution. The principle of non refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a territory where they may be at risk of persecution, torture, or other forms of serious or irreparable harm, is a norm of customary international law.

As such, it is binding on all States, whether or not they have acceded to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. The Constitution under Articles 32 and 226 confers on the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively the power to issue writs to protect the fundamental rights of itizens. These include rights that are applicable to both citizens as well as foreigners (except in the case of the latter, Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30). Since habeas corpus is a writ against unlawful detention of a person, hence it is applicable to foreigners also. There is catena of cases where the Supreme Court established that while the government has broad power to expel foreigners, petitioners can use habeas corpus to challenge illegal detention, especially concerning rights under Article 21.

But courts balanced this with national security and sovereignty. In Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India (1966) that dealt with a Presidential Order under Article 359, the Court confirmed foreigners’ right to challenge detention. It clarified that a presidential order under Article 359(1) did not completely bar judicial review of actions taken under emergency powers. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991) the Supreme Court held that the government’s power to expel foreigners is “absolute and unlimited,” but still affirmed due process rights, setting limits on executive discretion.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Chakma Migrants Case (1996) that non-citizens were also entitled to right to life. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Court dealt with the matter of a large number of Chakmas who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1964, first settled in Asaam and Tripura and became Indian citizen in due course. Since the State of Assam had expressed its inability to rehabilitate all of them, about 65,000 of them were shifted to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The All-Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) had threatened to forcibly expel them from the State.

Since all efforts to tackle the problem of their security had failed, the NHRC was compelled to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief. The Supreme Court held that the State was bound to protect the life and liberty of every being, whether citizen or non-citizen, holding that it is the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas. The court also directed Arunachal Pradesh to take all possible steps to ensure safety of Chakmas and their life and personal liberty. The court went to the extent of saying that any attempt to forcibly evict or drive them out of the State by AAPSU must be repelled by force considered necessary to carry out the direction of the court.

The Supreme Court has reiterated in various cases that the foreigners lack Article 19 rights to reside in India, but detention must still comply with Article 21, limiting grounds for challenge to illegal confinement. On a scrutiny of the cases, one finds that foreigners’ rights are limited and valid challenges through habeas corpus focus on detention violating Article 21, such as lack of reason, procedures under the Foreigners Act, or illegal confinement, and not the decision to expel itself. Indian courts recognize broad executive power in immigration and expulsion, but not absolute power to disregard due process. Courts balance individual rights with national security, border control, and public interest.

(THE WRITER IS PROFESSOR OF LAW, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY.)

Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has arrested Al Falah University chairman Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui in a case involving alleged financial and administrative irregularities, officials confirmed on Thursday.

The arrest comes amid parallel investigations by the Enforcement Directorate, following complaints filed by the University Grants Commission.

Police confirmed that Siddiqui was produced before a Delhi court, which granted the Crime Branch four days of police custody for questioning and evidence collection.

UGC complaints, FIRs and the ED’s money-laundering case

The Crime Branch registered two FIRs after the UGC flagged suspected violations linked to the university’s regulatory claims and administration.

The ED has filed a chargesheet against Siddiqui and the Al Falah Charitable Trust under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the agency, the case is rooted in allegations that the university falsely claimed NAAC accreditation even after its grades had expired.

Investigators have told the court that regulatory recognition was allegedly fabricated to mislead students and parents, inducing admissions and the collection of fees through misrepresentation. The agency said its financial analysis indicated that funds collected during this period could qualify as proceeds of crime under the PMLA.

The ED has also informed the court that it has provisionally attached assets as part of the probe. Searches at multiple locations reportedly led to the recovery of cash, digital devices and financial records. The agency has alleged that certain contracts were diverted to entities linked to Siddiqui’s family and that senior officials confirmed his role in approving major financial decisions.

On February 13, a Delhi court is scheduled to hear arguments on the ED’s chargesheet after the defence sought time to examine the documents filed with it.

Earlier scrutiny and security-linked investigations

The university has faced national scrutiny in recent years. In November last year, its website was taken offline after the National Assessment and Accreditation Council issued a show-cause notice over alleged false claims related to accreditation status.

Separately, investigations into the November 10, 2025, Red Fort car blast, which killed 15 people, revealed links to the institution and its parent trust. The driver of the explosive-laden vehicle was identified through DNA as Dr Umar un Nabi, an assistant professor at the university. Investigators later arrested other staff members for alleged roles in what agencies described as a “white-collar” terror module.

Officials have said further details in the financial and administrative probe are likely to emerge as questioning continues.

The Supreme Court’s recent affirmation that larger companies may legitimately face heavier penalties for environmental violations has triggered familiar constitutional unease. If environmental damage is the same, critics ask, how can the law justify different penalties based on the size or turnover of the polluter? Does this not undermine equality before law and replace damage-based justice with balance-sheet-based punishment? The anxiety is not frivolous. Equality before law is a foundational constitutional guarantee, and environmental enforcement must not descend into arbitrariness or moral signaling. Yet the criticism, persuasive at first glance, rests on a misunderstanding – both of what the Supreme Court has held and of how environmental liability has long operated in Indian and international law.

Far from diluting the rule of law, the Court’s reasoning restores seriousness, proportionality, and effectiveness to environmental enforcement in an era where symbolic penalties have repeatedly failed to deter large-scale ecological harm. In matters arising from unauthorised construction undertaken without mandatory environmental clearances, the Supreme Court upheld substantial environmental compensation imposed on real estate developers. In doing so, it observed that factors such as project cost, turnover, and scale of operations may be relevant in determining environmental compensation. This observation has been widely misread as an endorsement of size-based punishment.

It is not. The Court did not suggest that larger companies must pay more irrespective of the damage caused, nor did it imply that smaller entities deserve leniency merely because of their size. What it recognised was something far more orthodox: environmental sanctions serve multiple purposes, and a penalty that is inconsequential to a large economic actor fails in one of its core functions – deterrence. A flat or nominal penalty, when imposed on a large corporate entity, often becomes a routine cost of business. When illegality is cheaper than compliance, the law loses its normative force. Environmental regulation, in such circumstances, becomes performative rather than corrective.

The Court’s reasoning seeks to arrest precisely this failure. This approach is firmly anchored in settled environmental jurisprudence. Since the mid-1990s, Indian environmental law has consistently rejected the idea that financial capacity can dilute environmental responsibility. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that industries responsible for environmental degradation are liable to compensate for the harm caused and to bear the cost of remediation. The Court was categorical that the polluter must pay to reverse the damage and that the burden cannot be transferred to society at large.

That principle was reiterated and constitutionalised in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), where the Court explicitly incorporated the polluter pays and precautionary principles into Indian law and linked environmental protection to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. These judgments establish two propositions beyond serious dispute. First, environmental liability is strict; intent, negligence, or financial hardship are irrelevant. Second, compensation must reflect the full cost of environmental restoration, not merely a token punitive fine. Much of the confusion surrounding the recent ruling arises from a failure to distinguish between two analytically distinct components of environmental compensation. The first is restoration and restitution.

This includes the cost of reversing ecological damage, restoring land, forests, and water bodies, and compensating affected communities for health, livelihood, and environmental loss. This component is entirely damage-centric. It is triggered by harm, not by the identity or size of the polluter. A small company that causes extensive groundwater contamination or irreversible ecological damage does not receive a discounted liability because it is small. The cost of restoration follows the damage, not the balance sheet. Indian courts have never accepted financial incapacity as a defence against environmental harm. If the cost of remediation exceeds the polluter’s net worth and results in closure or insolvency, that consequence is legally permissible.

Environmental law does not guarantee corporate survival; it guarantees environmental accountability. This approach has been consistently followed by the National Green Tribunal, which has repeatedly held that compensation must reflect actual environmental cost regardless of the polluter’s economic stature. The second component of environmental compensation is deterrence. This is where economic scale becomes relevant. Punishment that does not hurt does not deter. Identical monetary penalties imposed on vastly unequal economic actors produce unequal outcomes. What may cripple a small enterprise may be trivial for a large corporation with multi-crore turnovers.

If environmental penalties are absorbed as routine operational expenses, compliance becomes optional and enforcement collapses into symbolism. Calibrating penalties to economic capacity ensures that sanctions have a real-world impact across the spectrum of polluters. This distinction between damage-based liability and deterrence-based calibration is central to understanding why the Supreme Court’s reasoning does not violate equality before law. A recurring objection is that smaller companies might exploit this approach to escape serious liability even after causing massive environmental damage. This fear is legally unfounded. Environmental liability in India is not capped by company size.

There is no principle that entitles a small enterprise to reduced liability merely because it lacks financial capacity. Where environmental damage is severe, compensation may exceed the polluter’s assets. Courts have wide powers to enforce such liability, including attachment of assets, closure of operations, recovery proceedings, and proceedings against those in control of the enterprise. The law does not intervene to protect a polluter from the economic consequences of ecological harm. What size influences is not liability, but the structure of punishment. A small company that causes massive damage will be fined heavily for the extent of that damage.

The idea that size operates as a shield against serious environmental liability is simply incorrect. Does calibrating penalties to economic capacity offend Article 14 of the Constitution? The answer lies in understanding the difference between formal equality and substantive equality. Article 14 does not mandate identical treatment in all circumstances. It prohibits arbitrariness and requires a rational nexus between classification and objective. Treating unequal actors identically often produces unequal and unjust outcomes.

A flat penalty regime, blind to economic reality, may appear neutral but in practice allows large polluters to escape meaningful consequences while disproportionately burdening smaller actors. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that proportionality is a facet of non-arbitrariness. Penalties must be rationally connected to the objectives they seek to achieve. In environmental law, those objectives include restoration, deterrence, and prevention of future harm. By allowing economic scale to inform the deterrent component of penalties while keeping liability firmly anchored to environmental damage, the Court’s approach satisfies Article 14 scrutiny rather than undermining it. The reasoning also aligns with international environmental practice.

The polluter pays principle, recognised in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), encourages states to internalise environmental costs and ensure that polluters bear responsibility for the harm they cause. International environmental regimes routinely combine strict liability for damage with economically calibrated sanctions for deterrence. OECD and European Union frameworks recognise that identical nominal penalties do not deter large polluters, and fines are often linked to turnover, profit, or economic benefit derived from violations, while restoration obligations remain harm-based. One of the chronic failures of environmental regulation in India has been the imposition of penalties too small to matter.

For large developers, mining companies, and industrial actors, nominal fines have often been treated as a license fee rather than legal censure. The Supreme Court’s reasoning confronts this failure directly. By acknowledging that economic scale matters for deterrence, the Court has sent a clear message that environmental compliance is not optional and that violations will not be priced cheaply. At the same time, by reaffirming damage-based liability, the Court has ensured that environmental law does not become arbitrary or discriminatory. Environmental law does not promise corporate survival; it promises environmental accountability.

By insisting that damage determines liability and economic scale determines whether punishment deters, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a foundational truth: the rule of law is not about identical outcomes, but about proportionate, effective, and meaningful consequences. In an era of escalating ecological stress and industrial expansion, symbolic penalties are worse than ineffective; they are complicit. By restoring proportionality and seriousness to environmental enforcement, the Court has strengthened the rule of law, not weakened it.

(THE WRITER IS A COMMENTATOR ON LEGAL AFFAIRS.)