City gears up to thank CM Mann for reviving bullock cart race in Pb
It will be held at Mehma Singh Wala Football Stadium on Tuesday (July 29) and presided over by the CM.
As per an official statement, the event follows the state govt's approval of the Punjab Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Punjab Amendment) Act and the Punjab Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Bullock Cart Race) Rules, 2025, paving the way for the resumption of bullock cart racing in the state.
"It is a historic step taken by the Punjab govt," Sangowal and Pannu said, adding that the CM will also hold deliberations with those engaged in bullock cart races at the event.
An official in the district administration said it is a thanksgiving function and bullock cart races are not expected at the venue.
The district administration will ensure meticulous arrangements to make the event a success, celebrating the cultural significance of bullock cart races in Punjab.
Prominent amongst those present on the occasion included ADC Amarjit Bains, SDMs Jasleen Kaur Bhullar, Upinderjeet Kaur Brar, and others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Govt says National Medical Commission rules allow complaints against docs, but commission rejects them
NEW DELHI: Responding to a Parliament question on whether the National Medical Commission (NMC) was biased towards doctors, the health ministry has stated that the ethics regulation of 2002 provided for complaints against doctors. However, NMC's ethics section has been rejecting all patient appeals claiming that the NMC Act prevails over the 2002 ethics regulation. The NMC act states that doctors can file appeals against state medical council decisions. Referring to this, the ethics section has been dismissing all appeals filed by patients claiming that only doctors can file an appeal, even though it is against the law. The NMC Act itself clearly states that 'the rules and regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards or requirements are specified under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder'. Since the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 has not been replaced, it still stands. Clause 8.8 of the 2002 ethics regulation states: 'Any person aggrieved by the decision of the State Medical Council on any complaint against a delinquent physician, shall have the right to file an appeal to the MCI within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the said Medical Council'. Yet, over 162 appeals of patients have been rejected by the NMC. In the reply to Parliament, minister of state for health Anupriya Patel stated that 'to ensure that the NMC functions in a transparent and fair manner', the central government appoints the chairperson and presidents of four autonomous boards as per the NMC Act 2019. However, there is no transparency as even the minutes of the meetings of the NMC and its autonomous boards are not available in the public domain as used to be the case with the erstwhile Medical Council of India. Moreover, all autonomous boards including the posts of presidents are currently almost entirely vacant with the government having failed to make appointments for over 10 months. The few minutes of commission's meetings accessed using RTI show that most non-doctor ex-officio members hardly ever attend meetings and hence most decisions are taken by commission members, almost most of whom are doctors. Of the 33-member commission, about 20 are doctors. 'I have complained to the health ministry and the law ministry by registered post about NMC rejecting patient appeals and hence I have proof. So, the health ministry cannot claim to have not received any complaints,' said Gokul Aneja, husband of a victim of alleged medical negligence, who appealed against the decision of the Punjab state medical council, only to have his appeal rejected twice.
The Print
5 hours ago
- The Print
Centre considers dramatic MRP overhaul to limit ‘irrational pricing'. What it'd mean for buyers, sellers
Remember rushing to the grocery store and checking the MRP labels before adding items to your cart? Consumers often refuse to pay the street vendors extra charges such as the 'cooling fee', considering that printed MRP is a government-mandated, fixed price that sellers must respect. Yet, rarely examined is how this price is determined. More importantly, why do identical products across brands carry varying MRPs? These questions have led New Delhi policy circles to rethink whether the MRP system is the best choice for consumers and retailers. Not a bureaucratic change, the overhaul will be addressing the chronic complaints of excess pricing, as well as misleading discounts, leaving consumers short-changed. New Delhi: From a package of biscuits to a bottle of shampoo in crowded shopping aisles—all bear that ubiquitous MRP tag, but change is in the offing. The Narendra Modi-led government is considering a dramatic overhaul of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) regime, which has been a bulwark of consumer protection since the 1990s. At its core, the maximum retail price is the highest price at which a seller can sell a packaged product to consumers in India. It is not a suggestion; it is a legal cap, inclusive of all taxes; printed, right on the packaging. It is illegal for retailers to undercut the cap in a competitive market and illegal to charge even an additional Re 1. The MRP system avoided arbitrariness, ensuring transparency in prices where bargaining is not always doable, such as new retail environments. The root of this pricing system goes back to 1990, when amendments to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, introduced the MRP. India, then poised for economic liberalisation, still had spotty consumer protections. The intention behind MRP was to protect consumers against exploitative tactics, such as retailers raising prices of a commodity during shortages. It developed from previous attempts in the 1970s to prevent tax evasions and extortionate local charges. By 2011, the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules legalised MRP, making it compulsory on all pre-packaged products, thereby eliminating dual pricing or preventing sellers from printing different prices on them. Legally, MRP, which falls under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Violations result in fines or penalties imposed by organisations, such as the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The MRP system—a one-of-a-kind pricing system adopted by India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, among other countries—is different from the recommended retail prices prevalent in the United States and Europe, among other nations, where market forces allow greater freedom. Jump to 2025, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs is leading what may become the most far-reaching MRP overhaul ever. In a crucial meeting with trade bodies, including the Confederation of Indian Industry, consumer associations, and tax authorities, earlier this year, in May, the Centre mulled over new frameworks. The new proposal? Tie MRP closer to real production and marketing expenditure, particularly in the case of essentials and daily items, and that may require fixing 'standard costs' after consultations with stakeholders, and possibly, amending the Legal Metrology Act, or the new GST regulations. The government is currently attempting to introduce a formula that will limit 'irrational pricing' to create the illusion among customers that they are saving money. The revamp may include transparency interventions, such as compulsory cost segregation, or maybe product QR codes that enable consumers to scan the code to confirm pricing rationale. Talks on adopting a Suggested Retail Price (SRP) model, as in Western economies, are also ongoing. Under the SRP, retailers may have room to negotiate local costs, such as transport in hinterlands. These contemplations are not occurring in a vacuum but are part of a larger consumer protection push, including anti-profiteering under GST and attempts to rationalise prices with digital platforms. Up to July 2025, however, no announcement of any final decision had been made. But why this shift, now? The consumer retail business has been booming in India. Online titans and hypermarkets are driving this boom while causing price distortions. Manufacturers tend to overprice MRPs to allow flashy discounts, tricking consumers into believing they are snagging a bargain. Consider a plain juice sachet, say one priced at Rs 50 and another at Rs 150, without any apparent logic, though the contents are the same. This lack of transparency kills trust and stokes perceptions of profiteering, particularly in the backdrop of post-pandemic inflation. Another example of exorbitant pricing is overpricing in tourist spots or rural areas with limited competition. Wider economic changes are at play there. Considering the growth rate (six to seven percent) in India, the government is looking to create a more equitable market, enhancing consumption without suppressing any invention. Along with the worldwide trend of nations, such as the US, depending on antitrust regulations to cap cartels, India is also viewing the reforms in MRP as a means to modernise and safeguard poor consumers in an economy that remains uneven. The crossroads: Pros and cons If implemented successfully, the overhaul of MRP could be a game-changer. Tying the maximum retail price of a product to its expenses could potentially lead to a decrease in the effective rates of necessities and lower household bills. A consumer could easily identify pricing scams on a soap packet if they could scan a QR code and see the cost breakdown. For instance, MRP may be production costs (40%), taxes (20%), and profit margin (40%). It would prevent tax evasions, as well as harmonise the MRP with GST, and prevent the concealment of profits in inflated MRPs. For companies, more defined norms may lead to honest pricing, increased competition, and more innovations. It will be a move in the direction of fairness, particularly in rural India, where MRP is the sole price reference in the absence of bargaining power, Consumer lobbies say. On the whole, it could also increase economic efficiency; research has indicated equivalent reforms in fuel subsidies insulated business growth from external shocks. But not all are smiling. Industry group voices, such as manufacturers and retailers, caution that inflexible cost-based MRPs could freeze out adaptability in a heterogeneous market. India extends from metropolitan malls to isolated villages, but requiring standard prices overlooks differential costs, such as higher transportation costs in hill stations. A move to SRP may result in price instability or cartels in low-competition areas, harming the very people it is supposed to protect. Speaking to ThePrint, Abhishek Rana, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India, said that the proposed law might take away the right of business owners to practise their kind of business. 'India, being a price-sensitive market, with hidden charges levied almost everywhere, a proposal aimed at regulating the method of calculating MRP or linking it to inherent production value, may be a welcome change. However, a challenge that the government may face will be to balance it with the right to business,' Rana added. Rana further pointed out the intangible factor of quality. One excuse that companies tend to use in their favour is the idea of brand quality and trust. Companies tend to promote their products as better compared to their rivals' by stating that the quality of the raw material used is superior. There may be some truth in it; it does allow a lot of 'puffery'. Throwing light on the same, Rana said, 'An argument of costs incurred due to the intangible parameter of an item'squality, production method, or even method of sourcing its raw materials can be difficult to regulate with guidelines, more so for luxury goods. How the government overcomes these probable issues remains to be seen. A suggested or recommended retail price, as adopted by various countries, might be a consideration.' While the revamp may seem ambitious, it may be of interest to small firms that remain concerned over compliance costs. Estimating and rationalising each MRP may increase administrative expenses, which the firms could transfer to consumers. Critics highlight that the MRP's dysfunction stems from weak enforcement, not the system itself; overhauling it risks unintended hikes if guidelines are too prescriptive. There is also the risk of dampening e-commerce dynamism, where personalised pricing drives sales. In a price-conscious country, any perceived hike can trigger anger, reminiscent of earlier milk street vendor boycotts over MRP issues. Transparency is commendable, but over-regulation, as in other reforming economies, may stifle India's free-market ambitions. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: ̌BJP MPs go full throttle against Trump even as govt hails enduring India-US ties amid tariff tension
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘Strong suspicion, no legal proof': Why all 7 accused in the 2008 Malegoan bomb blast case walked free
A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. In a detailed 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1 evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that although the occurrence of the bomb blast was indisputable, the prosecution had failed to produce credible and admissible evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the crime. 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the Judge underscored. However, he directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2 lakh to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to those injured in the blast. Editorial | By evidence alone: on the 2008 Malegaon blast trial What was the Malegaon blast case? On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb blast ripped through Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. Around 9:35 p.m., an explosive device concealed in an LML Freedom motorcycle with a fake number plate (MH-15-P-4572) detonated near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to surrounding property. An FIR was promptly registered, and the investigation was initially undertaken by the Nashik Rural Police and Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA as part of a wider probe into alleged Hindutva-linked terror cases. Of the 14 individuals arrested in connection with the blast, charges against seven were eventually dropped. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, were put on trial. They were prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings had taken place across various locations allegedly under Ms. Thakur's leadership. The agency also claimed that the two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, had assembled the explosive device and placed it in the boot of a motorcycle registered to Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including serving Army officers, later retracted their statements in court, alleging that their earlier testimonies had been coerced. Many of the accused also claimed that their confessions were extracted under torture. The NIA appeared to accept parts of these allegations in its final chargesheet, which the defence used to bolster its case. The case also attracted widespread attention following the resignation of NIA special public prosecutor Rohini Salian, who alleged that she had been instructed to 'go soft' on the accused and that the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so-called 'Hindu terror' network. After her departure, special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and conducted the trial to its conclusion. Why were the accused acquitted by the court? Here are some of the key findings: Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of motorcycle The court held that Ms. Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of the LML Freedom motorcycle in which the explosive device was allegedly planted. Citing her renunciation of the material world at least two years before the blast, Judge Lahoti observed, 'Prosecution had not led any evidence on record to show that she was in conscious possession of the said motorcycle even after renouncement of the material world. Nobody has seen her with the said motorcycle, or it was with her at Jabalpur Aashram even after taking the Sanyas.' The Judge further observed that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in assembling the explosive device. Instead, he noted that the explosive could have been hung, placed, or kept near the motorcycle, rather than fitted inside it. 'Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of the motorcycle are not conclusive proof of fitting explosives inside the dikki, i.e., beneath the seat of said motorcycle,' the Judge observed, adding that expert testimony did not rule out the possibility of the device being attached externally or placed nearby. As for allegations of torture by the ATS, the court noted that Ms. Thakur had not raised any such complaint when she was produced before a magistrate on October 24, 2008, following her arrest. Citing an earlier Supreme Court order, the Judge pointed out that she neither made any allegations of ill-treatment at the time nor challenged the magistrate's remand order. No official sanction for Purohit's association with Abhinav Bharat The ATS alleged that the explosive used in the blast was RDX, claiming it had been procured by Colonel Purohit during his posting in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the court found no evidence establishing the source of the explosive or how it was procured or transported. It also noted the absence of any proof regarding who had parked the motorcycle at the blast site or when, particularly since the area had been cordoned off for Ramzan. However, Judge Lahoti rejected Mr. Purohit's claim that his association with fringe organisations like Abhinav Bharat was part of his official duties as an intelligence officer. He noted that documentary evidence clearly established Mr. Purohit's role as a trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on record to suggest that his superiors had authorised him to join the trust or to collect and utilise its funds. 'As per the ethos of the Military Intelligence, the commanding officer or the Discipline & Vigilance Branch used to protect the interests of officers and sources. But after the arrest of A-9 (Mr. Purohit), no steps were taken to protect their officer. If he had really discharged the duty under the colour of his office, there would have been protection for him,' the Judge reasoned. Absence of forensic evidence Judge Lahoti observed that the forensic expert who examined the motorcycle, on which the explosive device was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was merely his 'guesswork' that led him to conclude the bomb was placed in the vehicle's boot. No scientific test had been conducted to verify the placement of the explosive. Accordingly, the Judge held that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the expert's testimony failed to inspire confidence. 'The present matter is [a] serious case of bomb-blast. In such a case, mere guess work is not enough. Neither it is expected from expert when he is specifically called on the spot to collect the articles, to assist and to guide the Investigating Agency by carrying out some scientific tests. In such situation, there must be some scientific test to be carried out by an expert on the spot to arrive at certain conclusion,' the Judge emphasised. Procedural lapses in the invocation of MCOCA and UAPA The ATS, which initially investigated the blast, based its case primarily on the accused having participated in conspiracy meetings related to the planning and execution of the attack. Its key evidence comprised confessional statements recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were rendered inadmissible after MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, when the NIA took over the investigation and flagged procedural lapses in the Act's invocation. The court concurred, noting that the sanction to invoke MCOCA had been granted without 'application of judicial mind.' A similar procedural lapse was found in the invocation of the UAPA. Judge Lahoti noted that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before granting sanction under the UAPA. As a result, the statutory presumptions under the Act, such as the reverse burden of proof, could not be invoked against the accused, the court held. No merit in claim that ATS directed arrest of RSS chief The court rejected the claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar that he had been instructed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti found no merit in the argument advanced by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had relied on Mr. Mujawar's statements before a Solapur court. Mr. Mujawar had alleged that senior ATS officers directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as one of 'saffron terror,' but said he refused, having found no evidence linking Mr. Bhagwat to the alleged crime. However, the Judge relied on the testimony of Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, the then chief investigating officer, who stated that Mr. Mujawar was only tasked with tracing the absconding accused, Mr. Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Dange, and was never instructed to arrest any RSS leader. The court also noted that Mr. Mujawar was neither listed nor examined as a witness by either side. Accordingly, it concluded that the statements submitted were part of Mr. Mujawar's defence in another case and held no evidentiary value in the present trial. What happens next? Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the case reflected 'significant failures' on the part of the NIA. He added that the victims' families intend to explore legal remedies by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court after reviewing the full judgment. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on the Maharashtra Government to file its own appeal, as it did following the acquittals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Twelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, with the High Court issuing scathing observations on the use of torture during the investigation. The State had moved the Supreme Court the very next day, prompting the apex court to clarify that the High Court's observations could not serve as precedent in other similar cases. In the present case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal, appearing for the NIA, said a decision on whether to file an appeal would be made only after a detailed study of the judgment.
