'Talibani punishment': With shoe on his head, bizman's son forced to apologise in Madhya Pradesh; Congress fumes
BHOPAL: A youth was forced to apologise by placing a shoe on his head outside Bairad police station in Shivpuri district. The incident occurred on Saturday during a meeting to resolve a dispute between two local youths.
The victim, son of a local businessman, was allegedly humiliated on the instructions of a panchayat allegedly attended by several BJP leaders. Congress has termed the act a "Talibani punishment" and accused BJP leaders of protecting criminals.
According to police, the dispute began when the victim and his friends threw pebbles near the house of Kuldeep Rawat, son of an exiled criminal.
A fight broke out, leading to tensions.
On Saturday, a panchayat decided he must apologize by placing shoes belonging to Kuldeep and his aide Chhotu on his head.
Congress demanded strict action. The Vaishya community also staged a protest and submitted a memorandum, warning of nationwide demonstrations if action is not taken.
Meanwhile, BJP leaders have denied involvement, claiming the video was edited.
The victim has also refused to comment to local media, saying only that he is relieved the dispute has ended.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Judges grill Trump over use of emergency powers for 'reciprocal tariffs'
US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years." The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners - mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other US laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CM tells police chief to crack down on black marketing of fertilizers
Blaming the Centre's policy for the shortage of urea and Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) during the ongoing kharif season in Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday instructed Director-General and Inspector-General of Police M.A. Saleem to keep vigilance to prevent the sale of fertilizers on the black market. Despite the Central government's inaction, the State government is taking necessary steps to ensure supply of fertilizers so that farmers are not inconvenienced during the sowing season, he said. Mr. Siddaramaiah has instructed the police chief to keep a close watch on black marketeers who are trying to create a shortage of fertilizers by illegally hoarding and selling it on the black market. 'There should be no artificial shortage of fertilizers in the district, taluk, or hobli,' the Chief Minister said, and instructed the police to keep a close watch on those who are creating shortages. While the BJP accused the government of mismanaging the available stock of fertilizers, the Congress termed the BJP claims of the Centre supplying adequate quantities of urea as 'false.' On Thursday, the Chief Minister met Ministers and Congress legislators of Vijayapura, Bagalkot, Gagad, Haveri, Shivamogga, Davangere, Chitradurga, Chikkamagaluru, and Chickballapur. During three days, he met Ministers and MLAs of all districts and heard their grievances related to funds and development works.
India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
Bihar Draft Electoral Rolls To Be Out Tomorrow; CEC Gyanesh Kumar Invites Electors To...
New Delhi: In a key step ahead of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, the Chief Election Commissioner of India, Gyanesh Kumar, announced that the draft electoral rolls for all 243 constituencies will be published on Friday, August 1, 2025. The rolls will be available online on the official website and shared in both digital and physical formats with recognised political parties across Bihar's 38 districts. Citizens and political parties can file claims or objections, including adding missing eligible voters, removing ineligible names, or correcting entries, from August 1 to September 1 through the 243 Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and District Election Officers (DEOs). Gyanesh Kumar said, "As per Para 7(4) of SIR orders (Page 3), the draft electoral rolls of Bihar are being published tomorrow, ie, Friday, the 1 Aug 2025. Physical as well as digital copies will also be given to all recognised political parties in Bihar in all 38 Districts by all the 38 District Election Officers (DEOs) of Bihar. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar and 243 Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) will also be inviting any elector of that Assembly Constituency or any Recognised Political party in Bihar to come forward and give claims and objections from 1 Aug to 1 Sep 2025 for adding names of any missing eligible elector, removing names of any ineligible elector or correction of any entry in the draft electoral rolls." The SIR process is being conducted in three distinct phases, as outlined by the Election Commission. The first phase involved counting from June 24 to July 25, 2025. Following this, the draft voter list will be published on August 1. During the second phase, from August 1 to September 1, voters and political parties can submit claims or objections to correct any errors in the draft list. In the third phase, lasting until September 25, all Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) will review and resolve these claims and objections. The primary goals of the SIR process include ensuring full participation from voters and political parties, guaranteeing that no eligible voter in Bihar is left off the list, including temporary migrants, urban residents, and young voters, and maintaining continuous communication with voters and political parties. The process also involves the active participation of election staff and volunteers, addressing issues raised during the counting phase, and eliminating errors in the draft voter list during the claim period. However, opposition parties have raised concerns about the SIR process. They argue that due to insufficient documentation requirements, many eligible voters could be disenfranchised. They also allege that the ruling BJP-JDU alliance might influence local election officers to their advantage. This issue has sparked daily debates and protests in both houses of Parliament during the monsoon session.
