A Cristiano Ronaldo gesture cost Coca-Cola $4 Bn
Finance
Ronaldo needs no introduction. He is a fitness freak and one of the best, if not the best, footballers of all time. Currently, he is busy breaking records for Portugal in Euro 2020. Recently, in a press conference, Ronaldo was seen moving Coca-Cola bottles away from his table and signaling that one should instead prefer drinking water.
It is believed that this gesture led to a sell-off of ~1.7% in the share prices of Coca-Cola, leading to a reduction of USD 4 billion in market capitalization. To set some context: Ronaldo is the most followed individual on Instagram and has a very active social media profile. His actions are observed by millions and influence their behavior.
Coca-Cola is one of the sponsors of Euro 2020 - which is why the bottles were placed on the press conference table. It is safe to say that they wouldn’t have seen this coming. They responded to this incident by saying - “everyone is entitled to their drink preferences,” as people have different “tastes and needs.”
This brings us to a classic problem of disaster-cum-PR management for a company. How can a company be ready for something like this?
Another example of such an instance is when Kylie Jenner said she doesn’t open Snapchat anymore. The share price of Snapchat sank 7.2% following the tweet and whipped out USD 1.2 billion from its valuation.
A more recent example is when Corona beer sales dipped by 2% (according to a CBS report), for reasons you can guess.
So if you were the PR head of Corona or Coca-Cola, how would you respond to this? Can one prepare for such instances in advance?
“Blurring lines between right to protest and terrorist activities”: HC on Delhi Riot case
Politics
On June 15, 2021, the Delhi HC granted bail to student leaders Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the UAPA case. The accused were arrested in May 2020 in connection with the riots in North East Delhi and were booked under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA).
The Delhi HC observed that there was “absolutely nothing” in the charge sheet, neither any specific nor any particular allegation that would show the possibility of “terrorist act” within the meaning of sections 15, 17 and 18 under the UAPA.
Who are the accused?
Students at JNU, Natasha Narwal is a PhD student at the Centre for Historical Studies and Devengana Kalita is pursuing her M.Phil degree at the Centre of Women’s Studies. Both Natasha and Devangana are Pinjra Tod activists.
Asif Iqbal Tanha is also a student pursuing his final year of B.A. (Hons.) (Persian) Programme at Jamia Millia Islamia.
Pinjra Tod is a collective that began in 2015 in opposition to discriminatory curfew timings for women in Delhi University hostels.
Why were they arrested?
On February 22, 2020, activists organized an anti-CAA protest at Jafrabad, following which BJP leader Kapil Mishra gave an incendiary speech demanding that the protesters leave. Communal clashes broke out in North East Delhi between February 24 and 26, as violence between the CAA supporters and protestors intensified, leaving 53 dead and around 200 injured.
First named in an FIR in February, Natasha and Devangana were arrested in May, for taking part in the sit-in protest. They were granted bail but were later arrested again under charges of murder, attempt to murder, rioting and criminal conspiracy.
Later, both were charged under UAPA in June. Asif was directly arrested under UAPA in May.
What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA)?
UAPA was developed as an anti-terrorism law to prevent unlawful activities associations and maintain the sovereignty and integrity of India.
UAPA confines the definition of ‘unlawful activities’ to:
(i) advocating secession of a part of India,
(ii) questioning or disrupting India’s territorial integrity or
(iii) causing “disaffection against India”.
Grant of bail under UAPA is extremely difficult with the law requiring that the prosecution and judge agree that the accused is innocent.
The accused were arrested under the same 59/2020 FIR under which other Jamia Millia Islamia students and other anti-CAA campaigners are facing charges under sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA. The police alleged that they had a role in the “conspiracy” behind the communal violence.
Between May 2020 and June 2021, Narwal and Kalita were granted bail for the February 22 protest and the murder case but remained in jail for UAPA.
In October 2020, Asif’s bail plea was rejected with the judge claiming that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations against Tanha were prima facie true. Natasha’s and Devangana’s bail pleas under UAPA were also rejected in January 2021.
In May 2021, Natasha was granted an interim bail a day after her fathers’ demise due to Covid-19 to perform the last rites.
Restrictions on grant of bail do not apply
Yesterday, the HC granted bail to the accused noting that the allegations against them do not hold commission of any offence under Sections 15 (Terrorist act), 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (Punishment for conspiracy) of the UAPA. The HC held that the additional conditions, limitations and restrictions on grant of bail under Section 43D (5) UAPA do not apply.
The court added that even if it is assumed that the protests have crossed the line of peaceful protests permissible under the Constitution, that will not amount to a 'terrorist act' under the UAPA.
State anxious to suppress dissent
“We are constrained to express that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy,” the order read.
In 2020, the Delhi High Court also granted bail to Jamia Millia Islamia University student Safoora Zargar on humanitarian grounds, considering her pregnancy at the time.
The court also mentioned that actions like making inflammatory speeches and organising chakka jams, or road blockades, are not uncommon when there is “widespread opposition to governmental or parliamentary actions”.
The bail is subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two personal sureties. The accused have been asked to surrender their passports and not do anything that may interfere with the case or the investigation.
Like what you read? Share this article with your friends and follow us on:
Instagram | Medium | LinkedIn