An Air India Express flight carrying over 180 passengers was forced to return to Kannur International Airport in Kerala on Tuesday after pilots detected a technical issue with the aircraft's engine approximately two hours into the journey to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The flight departed Kannur at 7:40 AM. However, while en route, the crew received an engine warning indication and decided to turn the aircraft back as a precautionary measure, airport sources said.

The aircraft remained airborne for some time and circled the airport to reduce fuel weight — a standard safety procedure carried out prior to an unscheduled return — before landing safely. All passengers and crew members were unharmed.

Fuel filter fault identified

Following the aircraft's return, a technical inspection revealed an issue with the fuel filter, sources confirmed. Officials said the fault triggered the warning that prompted the crew to abort the journey.

"The flight crew chose to return to Kannur after identifying a technical problem during the journey. Safety remains our highest priority in every aspect of our operations," an Air India Express spokesperson said.

 Alternative aircraft arranged

The airline has arranged an alternative aircraft for the onward journey to Jeddah. Passengers have been provided with refreshments and hotel accommodation, the spokesperson added.

"We regret the inconvenience," the airline said in a statement.

The incident occurred on an Air India Express service operating from Kannur, Kerala, to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with more than 180 passengers onboard.

Officials confirmed the aircraft completed a safe landing and that there was no immediate danger to passengers at any point during the incident.

 Investigation underway

The airline has begun examining the technical fault that prompted the return. Further details about the specific nature of the fuel filter issue are awaited.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation has been notified about the incident, sources said. A formal investigation into the technical glitch is expected to be conducted.

Passengers who were onboard have been accommodated in hotels while arrangements for the alternative flight are being finalised.

A social media influencer popularly referred to as the “Viral Girl” has approached the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court claiming that her original birth certificate was illegally altered to portray her as a minor after her marriage. The petition, filed jointly with her husband on Wednesday, alleges manipulation of government records and seeks restoration of the original birth details along with an independent investigation into the matter. The case has triggered fresh attention due to allegations involving forged records, a POCSO case, social media controversy and claims of communal targeting linked to the marriage.

Petition Filed In High Court

According to the petition submitted before the Indore High Court, the woman claimed that her original birth certificate was removed from the government portal without notice or legal procedure. The petition alleges that a new birth record carrying a different date of birth was uploaded to falsely project her as a minor. The couple argued that the alleged changes were made to bring their marriage under criminal scrutiny. They have demanded restoration of the original birth certificate and an independent inquiry into the alleged tampering of official government records.

Couple Married In Kerala

As per details mentioned in the petition, the woman met her husband during a film shoot in Kerala. Their friendship later developed into a relationship, following which the couple reportedly got married in March 2026. The woman, a resident of Madhya Pradesh’s Khargone district, had earlier gained widespread attention on social media after viral videos and photographs circulated online. According to the petitioners, the marriage was legal and took place with mutual consent.

Controversy After Marriage

The matter became controversial after objections were reportedly raised regarding the woman’s age at the time of marriage.

The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had questioned the validity of the marriage, alleging that the woman was 16 years old during the wedding and that forged documents were used. Following the allegations, Khargone police registered a case against the husband under provisions of the POCSO Act. However, according to legal representatives of the couple, the Kerala High Court on April 20, 2026, stayed the arrest of the husband in the case.

Allegations Of Social Campaign

The petition further alleged that the woman’s father and some other individuals carried out a defamatory campaign against her husband on social media platforms.

According to the plea, the marriage was deliberately linked with sensitive terms such as “love jihad” to create communal tension and influence public opinion.

The petitioners argued that the matter relates to a personal marital decision but was being presented misleadingly on digital platforms and social media channels.

Lawyer Alleges Record Tampering

Advocate BL Nagar, representing the woman, claimed that the official records were manipulated in an attempt to oppose the marriage. He alleged that the original birth certificate was removed from the government system and replaced with altered details to legally portray the woman as underage.

The lawyer maintained that the woman was an adult at the time of marriage and had married voluntarily in Kerala. He further argued that the POCSO case against the husband was registered on the basis of allegedly fabricated documents and pointed out that the Kerala High Court had already granted interim relief against arrest.

Demand For Independent Probe

The petition has sought directions for restoration of the original birth records and a court-monitored or independent investigation into those allegedly responsible for removing or modifying official documents. Legal sources indicated that the matter could come up for hearing before the Indore bench in the coming days. The case has attracted significant public attention due to its combination of legal, social and digital controversy elements, making it one of the major public interest stories in recent Madhya Pradesh news developments.

FIR Against Film Director

Separately, the woman had registered an FIR on April 29, 2026, in Kerala against film director Sanoj Mishra and three others under provisions related to the POCSO Act. According to the complaint, the alleged incidents took place during the shooting of the film “The Diary of Manipur” when she was reportedly a minor.

The complainant accused the director of misconduct and exploitation under the pretext of offering acting opportunities. A Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader and advocate identified as Anil Vilayil was also named among the accused in the case. The complainant alleged that defamatory content targeting her was circulated on social media.

Director Rejects Allegations

Film director Sanoj Mishra has denied all allegations and described the accusations as part of a planned conspiracy. He claimed he was being targeted for speaking on issues linked to “love jihad” and alleged that the actress had been influenced and taken to Kerala before the marriage. Mishra further alleged that forged documents were used in the marriage and claimed false cases were being filed against him after he raised objections in the matter.

As the mercury crosses 45 degrees Celsius in Northern India, health experts are moving away from synthetic electrolytes and promoting natural hydration hacks found in every Indian kitchen. With heatwave-related fatigue rising by 30% this month, according to the National Centre for Disease Control, traditional cooling agents like sattu, aam panna, and coconut water are becoming the country’s top defence against summer illnesses.

Traditional Wisdom Returns
Doctors at AIIMS note that sugary sodas and caffeinated drinks actually dehydrate the body. “We are seeing a shift toward Jaljeera and Buttermilk,” says Dr. Anjali Kapoor, a nutritionist. “These natural drinks restore electrolyte balance without harmful additives.”

The Sattu Solution
In Bihar and Punjab, roasted gram flour (Sattu) mixed with water and mint is emerging as a superdrink. It provides instant energy and cools the stomach lining. Local vendors report a 200% spike in Sattu sales this May.

Cucumber and Mint Infusion
Hack 3 involves simply adding cucumber slices, mint leaves, and lemon to a water bottle. This natural infusion replaces lost minerals. It is zero-calorie and pH-balanced.

Why Avoid Cold Water
Contrary to popular belief, drinking ice-cold water shocks the digestive system. Ayurvedic experts recommend room-temperature or slightly cool water infused with vetiver roots (khus) for deep cellular hydration.

Impact on Daily Life
Schools in Rajasthan have already installed clay pots (matkas) for students. Corporate offices in Bengaluru are offering nimboo pani instead of soft drinks in cafeterias.

What Next
The Ministry of AYUSH plans to launch a “Desi Hydration Drive” next week. They will distribute free pudina (mint) seeds to urban households. For now, start your morning with a glass of saunf (fennel) water to prepare your body for the heat.

'Paisa Interest Litigation': SC slams misuse of PILs in Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court has questioned the motives of the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 petition, noting that PILs are increasingly becoming tools for personal gain.

In a stinging critique of the current judicial landscape, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have largely devolved into "Paisa Interest Litigation" or "Publicity Interest Litigation." The bench, which is currently deliberating on critical questions surrounding religious freedom, expressed serious reservations about how such petitions are being leveraged in the modern era.

The verbal observations came during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala temple matter, which has triggered a broader debate on the intersection of individual rights and centuries-old religious traditions.

Bench questions 2006 petition motive

The top court’s scrutiny was specifically directed at the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which had filed the original petition in 2006 challenging the age-old ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala. Justice Surya Kant, part of the bench, noted that the association seemed to have little to do with the actual devotees or the ground reality of the shrine at the time.

"It has become more of a Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, and now Money Interest Litigation," the bench remarked, highlighting a growing trend where litigations are filed based on newspaper reports rather than substantive personal or community injury.

Concerns over 'proxy' litigation

Sources familiar with the proceedings said the court expressed concern over whether the original petitioners were truly "aggrieved parties." The bench noted that the 2006 PIL was largely constructed around media reports. The judges suggested that organizations should perhaps focus more on the welfare of their own members rather than seeking judicial intervention in complex religious customs where they may not have a direct stake.

This line of questioning shifts the focus back to the locus standi—the right to bring a lawsuit to court—which has been a point of contention in the Sabarimala case for years.

The Sabarimala legal timeline

To understand the weight of these remarks, one must look back at the 2018 verdict. A five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, had previously lifted the ban on women of menstruating age, calling the practice unconstitutional. However, that decision led to a massive wave of review petitions and sparked a nationwide debate on whether the court should interfere in "essential religious practices."

The current nine-judge bench was subsequently formed to address larger issues, including whether a person who does not belong to a particular religion can challenge its practices through a PIL.

Focus on religious freedom

The court is currently dealing with a massive bundle of petitions that go beyond just Sabarimala. The scope has expanded to include the entry of women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women married outside their faith.

Legal experts suggest that the court’s latest comments on "Paisa Interest Litigation" signal a stricter approach toward entertaining PILs in the future. The bench indicated that while the doors of the court are open to the marginalized, they should not be used as a platform for political or financial maneuvering.

Impact on future filings

The proceedings on Tuesday have sent a clear message to the legal fraternity. Local authorities and legal observers in the capital believe this could lead to a tightening of the rules governing PIL admissions.

The hearing is expected to continue through the week, with the bench likely to further define the boundaries of judicial overreach in matters of faith. For now, the "paisa interest" remark stands as a stern warning against the commercialization of the judicial process.

Sabarimala row: SC asserts judicial review over religious practices

In the ongoing Sabarimala row, the Supreme Court and Centre differ on courts’ role in assessing religious practices and alleged discrimination

Hearing Continues in SC

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing the long-standing Sabarimala row, focusing on whether courts can examine religious practices and label them as superstition. The proceedings, before a nine-judge Constitution bench, saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the judiciary on the scope of judicial review.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that secular courts lack the expertise to determine what constitutes superstition in matters of faith. However, the bench maintained that constitutional courts retain the authority to examine such practices, especially where fundamental rights are involved.

Govt vs Court Stand

Presenting the Centre’s position, Mehta said religious practices vary widely across India’s diverse communities and should not be judged by courts using a uniform standard. He cautioned that labelling practices as superstition could lead to unintended consequences in a plural society.

The bench, however, pushed back. Justice Amanullah observed that courts have the power of judicial review and cannot be excluded entirely from examining religious practices. “The final determination cannot rest solely with the legislature,” the court noted during the exchange.

Debate on Discrimination

A key issue in the Sabarimala row remains alleged discrimination against women. The bench repeatedly underlined that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be ignored.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna questioned whether denying entry to women on the basis of menstruation could be equated with untouchability, which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The government countered that the Sabarimala tradition cannot be equated with caste-based untouchability and argued that not all religious restrictions violate fundamental rights.

Essential Religious Practice

The hearing also revisited the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practice” (ERP), which determines whether a practice qualifies for constitutional protection.

Mehta argued that courts should refrain from deciding what is essential to a religion, as this would require interpreting scriptures and beliefs—tasks beyond judicial competence.

The bench acknowledged the complexity but indicated that courts may still examine practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.

Background of Case

The Sabarimala row dates back decades, centred on the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, where women aged 10 to 50 were traditionally barred from entry.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a 4:1 majority verdict, allowed entry of women of all ages, calling the ban unconstitutional. The ruling triggered widespread protests across Kerala.

Subsequently, over 50 review petitions were filed, leading to the current hearings before a larger bench examining broader constitutional questions.

Wider Constitutional Questions

The present proceedings extend beyond Sabarimala and include issues such as women’s entry into mosques, Parsi fire temples, and practices in other religions.

The bench is examining how Articles 25 and 26—guaranteeing religious freedom—interact with Articles 14, 15, and 17, which ensure equality and prohibit discrimination.

Judges indicated that while religious autonomy is protected, it cannot override constitutional morality in cases of clear discrimination.

What Lies Ahead

The hearings are scheduled to continue until April 22, with different sets of petitioners presenting arguments in phases. A final ruling is expected to clarify the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights.

The outcome of the Sabarimala row is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases across India, shaping how courts interpret faith-based practices in the context of constitutional values.

As the debate unfolds, the case remains a significant public interest story and a key India News Update, closely tracked across legal and policy circles.

The sequel to the controversial 2023 blockbuster has ignited fresh debates over forced conversions, religious symbolism, and creative freedom just days before its theatrical debut.

The trailer for 'The Kerala Story 2' dropped on February 17, and within hours, the controversy machine was running at full throttle again. The sequel to the 2023 surprise hit is now facing intense backlash over specific scenes, political condemnation, legal challenges, and a very public war of words between its director and Bollywood filmmaker Anurag Kashyap.

Set to release in theatres on February 27, the film arrives amid familiar yet heightened tensions surrounding its predecessor's core themes of religious conversion and radicalisation.

What Sparked the Latest Controversy?

The trailer's most contentious moment involves a scene where a character is allegedly pressured to eat beef—a sequence critics argue is designed to portray a particular community negatively while reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Supporters of the film, however, defend the scene as symbolic storytelling meant to depict the character's internal conflict and transformation. Given that beef consumption remains one of India's most politically and culturally sensitive topics—deeply intertwined with religious identity—the sequence has become ground zero for the current debate.

Political Leaders Speak Out

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had previously criticised the original film's narrative, has reiterated his concerns. State leadership argues that such portrayals unfairly target Kerala's image and promote misinformation about the region's social fabric.

"We cannot allow cinema to become a vehicle for distorting reality and damaging the harmonious coexistence that defines our state," a statement from the Chief Minister's office read, echoing sentiments expressed during the first film's release in 2023.

Bollywood's Divided House

Anurag Kashyap Calls It Propaganda

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap didn't mince words when addressing the project. He openly questioned the intention behind revisiting such sensitive themes, suggesting the sequel crosses the line from storytelling into propaganda territory.

Kamakhya Narayan Singh Fires Back

Director Kamakhya Narayan Singh hit back at Kashyap's criticism, alleging that the acclaimed filmmaker has a problem with everything that doesn't align with his worldview. The exchange has split the film fraternity, with some supporting creative freedom while others worry about mainstreaming divisive content.

Actor Prakash Raj also weighed in, expressing concern that such narratives are becoming increasingly mainstream without encouraging meaningful dialogue between communities.

Legal Trouble Brewing

A petition has reportedly been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the censor certificate granted to the film. Petitioners question whether the Central Board of Film Certification adequately evaluated the potential impact on public harmony before clearing the project for release.

The legal challenge argues that the film could incite tension and disturb law and order in an already sensitive communal environment. Activists contend that given India's current social climate, films dealing with religion and extremism must be handled with greater responsibility.

The Original's Shadow Looms Large

To understand the current backlash, one must revisit 'The Kerala Story' (2023). The original film claimed to depict women from Kerala who were allegedly converted and recruited by ISIS. Its teaser initially stated that 32,000 women had gone missing and joined the terror group—a figure that triggered immediate outrage.

Political leaders and fact-checkers pointed out there was no verified data supporting such a massive claim. Following criticism, the makers modified their description, reducing focus to three women and calling it a "fictionalised account inspired by true events." The Supreme Court eventually allowed its release but mandated a disclaimer clarifying it was a fictionalised story without confirmed data.

The Bigger Debate: Freedom vs Responsibility

The controversy surrounding 'The Kerala Story 2' has reignited a fundamental question that refuses to go away:

Should filmmakers have complete creative freedom, or should stricter scrutiny apply when films touch upon religion and national security?

Supporters of the film call it bold and necessary storytelling that addresses uncomfortable truths. Critics label it divisive and dangerous, arguing that dramatised storytelling influences public perception and creates mistrust between communities.

Where exactly is the line between raising awareness and pushing an agenda? That's the question audiences, activists, and policymakers are grappling with as the February 27 release date approaches.

What Happens Next?

The film's ultimate impact may depend on how audiences interpret it once it hits theatres. But one thing is certain: 'The Kerala Story 2' has already succeeded in becoming more than just a movie. It's now a flashpoint in India's ongoing conversation about politics, freedom of expression, media narratives, and social harmony.