Wikipedia

J. Sai Deepak: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Restored revision 1210340267 by CNMall41 (talk): ONUS is applicable
Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
Line 1:
{{short description|Indian Hindutva activist and litigator}}
{{Infobox person
| name = Jayakumar Sai Deepak
Line 26:
Deepak was one of the counsels for the [[Internet and Mobile Association of India]] vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, later clubbed into the [[Shreya Singhal v. Union of India]] case.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Prachi |title=Behind the scenes: How 90+ lawyers & 3 judges created the biggest free speech judgment in more than half a century |url=https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/behind-the-scenes-how-90-lawyers-3-judges-created-the-biggest-free-speech-judgment-in-more-than-half-a-century-20150401-5767 |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=www.legallyindia.com |language=en-gb}}</ref> The cases related to [[freedom of speech]] on social media, which had been severely curbed by the [[Information Technology Act, 2000]] which held posters criminally liable for their posts. The Supreme Court ruled Section 66 of the Act to be unconstitutional, and watered down Section 79 of the Act which had held intermediaries like tech companies responsible for illegal acts on their platforms.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 March 2015 |title=Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/aorexam/leading_cases/35.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>
 
Deepak is most famous for his representations in the case on the [[Entry of women to Sabarimala|entry of women]] to [[Sabarimala Temple]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-07-31 |title=A lawyer for Lord Ayyappa: Advocate Sai Deepak turns heads in SC arguing for Sabarimala deity's right to celibacy |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-lawyer-for-lord-ayyappa-advocate-sai-deepak-turns-heads-in-supreme-court-arguing-for-sabarimala-deitys-right-to-celibacy-4859291.html |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Firstpost |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Iyer |first=Lakshmi |date=5 August 2018 |title=Meet Sabarimala case lawyer Sai Deepak J, who caught the nation's attention with his ‘celibacy’ argument |url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read/small-talk-the-deitys-advocate/articleshow/65275883.cms |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=[[Mumbai Mirror]] |language=en}}</ref> which earned him appreciation from the 5 judge bench headed by Chief Justice [[Dipak Misra]] which had heard the case.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Press Trust of India |date=26 July 2018 |title=SC Praises Lawyer for Spirited Defense in Sabarimala Case |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/sc-praises-lawyer-for-spirited-defence-in-sabarimala-case-118072601333_1.html |website=Business Standard}}</ref> He argued against the entry, stating that the Hindu deity [[Lord Ayyappa|Ayyappan]] observes ''naishtika [[brahmacharya]]'' ("lifelong celibacy").<ref>{{Cite web |date=February 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Sabarimala-Written-Submissions-1.pdf}}</ref> He further argued that the deity is a living being and a [[juristic person]] and thus can avail the constitutional[[constitution]]al rights of religious liberty and [[Freedom of religion in India|freedom of religion]] granted by Articles 21 and 25 of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 July 2018 |title=Sabarimala #5: Respondents Argue Every Instance of Exclusion Not Akin to Discrimination |url=https://www.scobserver.in/reports/indian-young-lawyers-association-v-state-of-kerala-sabarimala-temple-entry-day-5-arguments/ |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref> The Supreme Court allowed women's entry into the temple in a 4:1 verdict, with Justice [[Indu Malhotra]], the only female judge on the bench, dissenting.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 September 2018 |title=Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala |url=https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf |website=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref>
 
Deepak was also a counsel in a petition to allow priests of any caste to be priests at Sabarimala, the priesthood at the temple has historically been open to only [[Malayali Brahmin|Malayali Brahmins]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sebastian |first=Sheryl |date=2023-02-25 |title=Sabarimala: People For Dharma Urges Kerala HC To Not Interfere With Practice Of Appointing Only Malayala Brahmin As Priest |url=https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sabarimala-people-for-dharma-urges-kerala-hc-to-not-interfere-with-practice-of-appointing-only-malayala-brahmin-as-priest-222527 |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref> Deepak argued that the norm was not caste discrimination, as [[Brahmin|Brahmins]] from other regions were also not allowed into the Sabarimala priesthood; he argued that this was the rule ordained by the deity and thus constitutionally protected by Articles 21 and 25, among other provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 February 2023 |title=Written Submissions in the Vishnunarayan vs State of Kerala case |url=https://www.peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14484_Written_Submission-3.pdf}}</ref> The case is still pending before the [[Kerala High Court]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jolly |first=Tellmy |date=2024-02-22 |title=Sabarimala: Kerala High Court To Pronounce Judgment On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Only Malayala Brahmins As Melshantis On Feb 27 |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-malayala-brahmin-judgment-tuesday-february-27-2024-250210 |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak represented the [[Travancore royal family]] for their right to manage the estates of the [[Padmanabhaswamy Temple]] in [[Thiruvananthapuram|Thiruvanathpuram]]. Deepak used scriptures (eg. the ''Kerala Mahatmya''), historical documents and agreements entered into by the royal family to prove that the takeover of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the [[Government of Kerala|Kerala government]] was illegal.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Padmanabhaswamy-Written-Submissions.pdf}}</ref> The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the family.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vishwanath |first=Apurva |date=2020-07-13 |title=Explained: Padmanabhaswamy temple case, and what the verdict means for the Travancore royal family |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-padmanabhaswamy-temple-case-and-what-verdict-means-for-travancore-royal-family-6503543/ |access-date=2023-10-04 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=13 July 2020 |title=Sri Marthanda Varma vs State of Kerala |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/10179/10179_2011_32_1501_22898_Judgement_13-Jul-2020.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref> Deepak was one of two counsels for a petitioner who accused the state government of apathy/involvement in the [[2021 West Bengal post-poll violence]]. The [[Calcutta High Court]] ruled in favor of the petitioners.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 August 2021 |title=Susheel Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQFWj7TPr1VsCA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1629430980517?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=aFfEmFbITeErArYgEdeaBK5WvLmhbLQMiwOmm2nBh7Y |publisher=Calcutta High Court}}</ref>
Line 38:
Deepak was the counsel for [[Anand Ranganathan]] in the [[Contempt of court in India|contempt of court]] case against the former for endorsing the criticism of Justice [[S. Muralidhar]] by [[S Gurumurthy]] and [[Vivek Agnihotri]]. The Justice had cancelled the arrest of [[Gautam Navlakha]], who had allegedly contributed to the incitement of the [[2018 Bhima Koregaon violence]].<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2817965951}} |title='Am a free speech absolutist': Author Anand Ranganathan in contempt case |agency=Indo-Asian News Service |date=24 May 2023 }}</ref> Deepak argued that Ranganathan merely supported the right of the Justice's critics to criticize him as part of their [[freedom of expression]], and that Ranganathan himself did not agree with the criticisms. The Delhi High Court closed the proceedings against Ranganathan.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-01-03 |title=Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-anand-ranganathan-criminal-contempt-case-tweets-justice-s-muralidhar-245737 |access-date=2024-02-03 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak is also the counsel for the [[Benares State|royal family of Kashi]] in the case demanding a [[constitutional review]] of the [[Places of Worship Act, 1991]], which freezes the status of all disputed religious structures as they were before Independence Day (15 August 1947).<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2711835121}} |title=Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act on October 11 |newspaper=Financial Express |location=New Delhi |date=9 September 2022 }}</ref> In particular, the family demands the ownership and restoration of the [[Razia Mosque]] and Dhaurahra Mosque, which they allege are structures occupying the orginial [[Kashi Vishwanath Temple]] and Bindu Madhav Temple sites, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaur |first=Gurpreet |date=2022-09-08 |title=Daughter Of Kashi Royal Family Head Moves Supreme Court Seeking Intervention In Petitions Challenging Places Of Worship Act |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/daughter-kashi-royal-family-intervention-place-of-worship-act-1437818 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
=== Intellectual property cases ===
Line 45:
Deepak was one of the counsels for [[Greenpeace]] in a case filed by [[Tata Sons]] alleging trademark infringement by the former through its 'Turtle vs. Tata' online game. The game displayed the endangered [[Olive ridley sea turtle|Olive ridley sea turtles]] fighting against the Tata logo, referring to the risk posed to the turtles due to the construction of [[Dhamra Port]] by Tata Sons.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vaughan |first=Adam |date=2010-07-26 |title=Tata to sue Greenpeace over turtle game |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/26/tata-sue-greenpeace-turtle-game |access-date=2024-02-13 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Justice [[S. Ravindra Bhat]] of the Delhi High Court (later a Supreme Court judge) ruled that the parody game did not infringe on the trademark, in a ruling seen as a landmark for freedom of expression.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 January 2011 |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Tata-Sons-Limited-v.-Greenpeace-International.pdf |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |publisher=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tata-sons-limited-v-greenpeace-international/ |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak was involved in the [[Basmati|Basmati rice]] [[Geographical indication|Geographical Indication]] dispute where he represented the [[Government of Madhya Pradesh]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-10-06 |title=SC issues notice on plea by MP over Basmati GI tag |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-by-mp-over-basmati-gi-tag-6704582/ |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> The Delhi High Court in a 2019 judgement voided the central government's exclusion of [[Madhya Pradesh]] from the list of states granted the right to grow Basmati rice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Delhi High Court |date=2019-04-25 |title=Judgement for the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India case |url=https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360416.pdf |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=LiveLaw |language=}}</ref> Deepak was the leading counsel for [[USV (company)|USV]], Micro Labs and MSN Laboratories in a case filed by [[AstraZeneca]] alleging [[patent infringement]] by Indian companies manufacturing [[Dapagliflozin]], which AstraZeneca held the patent for. The Delhi High Court did not grant an [[injunction]] in 2020;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Micro Labs Limited on 18 November, 2020 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18772769/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> and dismissed the case in 2021 after directing AstraZeneca to reimburse the legal costs for all the defendants.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 20 July, 2021 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60901055/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
 
Deepak was the arguing counsel for [[BharatPe]] in a case filed by [[PhonePe]] alleging trademark infringement by the former who had used the word 'Pe' (a play on Pay) in its trademark, which the latter claimed it had the trademark for. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and granted the trademark to BharatPe.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 August 2022 |title=PhonePe Private Limited vs. Ezy Services & Anr. |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGAP1VU-fytPg/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1666238412416?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=a_zfB3oQnYIPXXmAO-i7DX_xWc9Ih5aokqksgB5CniA |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the arguing counsel for [[Tube Investments of India Limited]] where they alleged that Jagdamba Enterprises had infringed on their trademark for the 'Diamond' brand of automobile parts by selling counterfeits under the same name. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tube.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 June 2022 |title=Tube Investments of India Limited vs. Jagdamba Enterprises |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGWgxxhF6YE4Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1665985442850?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=YgpDp9UGgxmPPIeMNNow0UFz_BtBpOBfPAv_-PMDqRw |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref>
 
Deepak was the counsel for [[Parle Products]] in a case they filed against [[Britannia Industries]], alleging that Britannia was mocking their brand tagline in its advertisements. The Delhi High Court prohibited the publishing of any such advertisements.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Sanjoli N. |date=2022-11-28 |title=Delhi High Court Restrains Britannia From Re-Publishing Disparaging Print Advertisements Against Parle |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court-britannia-parle-print-advertisements-1450272 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak was the leading counsel for [[Natco Pharma]] in a case where [[FMC Corporation]] claimed [[Process patent|process patents]] for production of [[chlorantraniliprole]]. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the patent claims and directed FMC to reimburse Natco for the legal costs incurred.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 December 2022 |title=FMC Corporation vs Natco Pharma |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQHbf2XO68KC1Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1670250273701?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=T6dHCqFmv8B1Q9q8EKE5jVlrrob6STOggPT2YI-Ee8Q |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak has also been the leading counsel for Natco in three other patent disputes. In the first case, Swedish pharma major [[Novartis]] claimed Natco had infringed on its patent for [[Entresto]] by manufacturing a [[Valsartan]] and [[Sacubitril]] combination medication similar to Entresto.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilla |first=Viswanath |date=2023-01-13 |title=Natco Plea: Delhi high court sets aside Novartis patent |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/natco-plea-delhi-high-court-sets-aside-novartis-patent/articleshow/96948659.cms?from=mdr |url-access=subscription |access-date=2024-02-09 |work=The Economic Times |issn=0013-0389}}</ref> The Delhi High Court nullified the patent granted to Novartis as the it was ruled to be in violation of statutory provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 January 2023 |title=Natco Pharma vs Novartis AG |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQE5zfTdBiAx1g/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1673783633693?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=4hj9X2LON-D4i_Jt8sJEkRz9Pmp334oVDQHlnQOfp5g |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> In the second case, the German pharma major [[Boehringer Ingelheim]] claimed Natco and other Indian pharma companies had infringed on its patent for [[Linagliptin]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and ordered Boehringer Ingelheim to reimburse Natco and the other defendants for their costs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 March 2023 |title=Boehringer Ingelheim vs. Natco Pharma & Others |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/ABL/judgement/29-03-2023/ABL29032023SC2362022_163714.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref>
Line 56 ⟶ 54:
 
Deepak was the leading counsel for MSN and [[Dr. Reddy's Laboratories]] in a case filed by [[CSL Vifor]]'s Indian arm alleging infringement on its patent for [[ferric carboxymaltose]], a supplement used to treat [[anemia]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 July 2023 |title=Vifor International Ltd. vs. MSN Laboratories & Ors. |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/JIS/judgement/25-07-2023/JIS24072023SC2612021_210538.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the leading counsel for [[Avenue Supermarts]] (trade name DMart) in a trademark dispute where Dolphin Mart claimed it had the sole right to use the name DMart. The Delhi High Court rejected the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dolphin Mart Private Limited vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr. on 21 August, 2023 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10209794/?type=print |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
 
Deepak was the counsel for [[MakeMyTrip]] in a case they filed against Dealmytrip, alleging trademark infrigement by the latter by using a similar sounding name to the former. The Delhi High Court issued an injunction to Dealmytrip ordering them to not use the name anymore.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pahwa |first=Jayanti |date=2023-12-03 |title=Confusingly Similar To 'MakeMyTrip': Delhi HC Grants Injunction Against 'DialMyTrip' For Trademark Infringement |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court-injunction-dialmytrip-makemytrip-suit-trademark-infringement-1507220 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak was the leading counsel for Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (DRL) in a case filed by Astrazeneca and Kudos Pharmaceuticals, alleging infringement of their patent for the anti-cancer drug [[Olaparib]] (brand name Lynparza). The Delhi High Court accepted the claim and ordered DRL to stop manufacturing Olaparib until 12 March 2024, when the patent would expire.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chaturvedi |first=Swasti |date=2024-01-02 |title=Delhi HC Permanently Restrains Dr. Reddy’s From Commercially Launching Any Product Consisting Of 'Olaparib' |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patent-case-dr-reddys-laboratories-ltd-restrained-olaparib-delhi-hc-1513076 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Verdictum |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=22 December 2023 |title=KuDOS Pharmaceuticals vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories |url=https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/kudos-pharmaceuticals-v-dr-reddys-laboratories-limitedwatermark-1575665.pdf |website=Verdictum}}</ref>
 
==Views==
Line 66 ⟶ 60:
Deepak is a [[Hindutva]] activist. He believes that the several good qualities of the [[Vedanga|knowledge systems]] of [[Vedic civilisation|ancient Hindu civilization]], mixed with the good qualities of [[Prussian education system|modern Education]] systems, can be a template for [[Education in India|modern Indian education]] systems, which he considers to have multiple drawbacks.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/j-sai-deepak-is-wrong-indian-democracy-is-not-hindu-will-8690455/ |last=Sijoria |first=Siddharth |title=J Sai Deepak is wrong: Indian democracy is not Hindu will|date=28 June 2023 |website=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/07/24/isolation-conservatism-and-buzzwords-what-drives-the-lucrative-market-for-right-wing-influencers|last=Sen |first=Raj Shekhar |title=Isolation, conservatism and buzzwords: What drives the lucrative market for right-wing influencers|date=24 July 2023 |website=[[newslaundry]]}}</ref> He opposes the [[Dravidian movement]] and [[Periyar|Periyarite]] thought, and claims they are Western interventions in Southern Indian faultlines.<ref>{{Cite web |last=T. Mayura Priyan |date=2023-10-08 |title=Sanatana Dharma and the Dravidian Movement: A response to J. Sai Deepak — 2 – The Leaflet |url=https://theleaflet.in/sanatana-dharma-and-the-dravidian-movement-a-response-to-j-sai-deepak-2/ |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=theleaflet.in |language=en-US}}</ref> He was criticized for his article where he discussed limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution against Hindu majoritarian expression. He had criticized the provisions for Hindu majority authority being subject to judicial review and being overruled if it conflicts with constitutional morality.<ref name=":0" />
 
Deepak's talks on the Karnataka hijab ban at [[St. Stephen's College, Delhi|St. Stephen's College]], and on minority rights at [[Jamia Millia Islamia]] respectively, were cancelled despite receiving permission in what was termed by some journalists as the advent of [[cancel culture]] and [[deplatforming]] in India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Utpal |date=2022-02-28 |title=The issue with St. Stephen's College isn't just confined to cancel culture; its very DNA is a problem |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/the-issue-with-st-stephens-college-isnt-just-confined-to-cancel-culture-its-very-dna-is-a-problem-10415281.html |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=Firstpost |language=en}}</ref> Deepak's talk on the [[Uniform Civil Code]] in [[Bengaluru]] at a Karnataka Bar Association event was faced with opposition from a group of lawyers who wanted the event to be cancelled in an attempted case of deplatforming, but it wasn't.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shukla |first=Suchita |date=2023-09-01 |title=Karnataka Bar Council Ignores Demand By Lawyers' Organisation To Cancel Sai Deepak's Talk On UCC, Event Witnesses Huge Crowd |url=https://www.verdictum.in/news/uniform-civil-code-all-india-lawyers-association-for-justice-1492654 |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
 
Deepak was criticized for his statements on the BeerBiceps podcast hosted by Ranveer Allahbadia. The host had asked him to name three people he would like to see permanently leave India, he named [[Barkha Dutt]], [[Irfan Habib]] and [[Romila Thapar]], and reasoned that they had propagated anti-national thought. As a result, these three faced online trolling where they were asked to leave the country.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Abhishek |date=9 August 2023 |title='BeerBiceps' Interview of J. Sai Deepak Violates Community Standards, But YouTube Won't Take It Down |url=https://thewire.in/tech/beerbiceps-j-sai-deepak-youtube-violations |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=The Wire}}</ref>
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Sai_Deepak"