Maya slams oppn to Babasaheb statue in MP
national president
said that lawyers with a casteist mindset should know that the Bahujan Samaj, which has been oppressed for years, now wants its respect.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
She also requested the Madhya Pradesh governor, CM and high court to intervene in the matter and allow the installation of the statue.
In a series of posts on X, on Friday, the BSP chief said, "It was the high court that gave permission to install Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's statue at the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court on the demand of the lawyers there, and through the financial support provided by them.
It was on the directions of the court that the spot was chosen, and the platform and the statue were readied."
However, the installation of the statue is being opposed by a few lawyers due to their casteist thinking, said Mayawati, adding, "There was no action taken against them despite their instigating comments on social media. Those who oppose Babasaheb will have to understand that the Bahujan Samaj, which has been oppressed for years, now wants to get its respect."
The former UP CM urged the governor, CM and the HC to remove the roadblocks in the installation of the statue and to get "the creator of the Constitution, Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's statue installed respectfully and immediately in the Gwalior bench of the MP high court."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
The State of Kerala on Monday (July 28, 2025) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear State Bills, saying it is a ruse to make the apex court sit in appeal of its own authoritative pronouncement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the apex court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said. The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Mizoram: Factionalism, politics cripple Chakma autonomous development council
The Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC), headquartered in Kamalanagar, is facing a deepening political crisis, which has paralysed development plans for the community and eroded public trust. Established in 1972 under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, the CADC was envisioned as a grassroots body for tribal self-governance, meant to uplift the ethnic Chakma population. Instead, it has become a stage for factionalism, where power struggles routinely eclipse public service. The stasis in CADC has triggered frustration and resentment among those who are vested in the state's development. Parbesh Chakma, president of the Mizoram Chakma Students Union, for one, is strongly critical of the council. 'Chakma people are paying the price for our leaders' incompetence,' Parbesh says, his tone measured yet edged with frustration. 'We're ignored, used, and misled. Nepotism runs deep, and education is not even on their agenda,' Parbesh, who returned home after years of studying in New Delhi, said. His disillusionment is echoed by many young Chakmas who have grown up watching the very institution meant to safeguard their rights become a revolving door of unstable leadership. In just the last seven years, the CADC has seen seven chief executive members (CEMs) rise and fall, unseated through no-confidence motions and betrayals of party loyalty. That dysfunction returned to the spotlight again on June 16, when CEM Molin Kumar Chakma who had led the first-ever BJP executive in the CADC—was ousted through a no-confidence vote. Molin had only been in office since February. The power shift came after 12 BJP councillors defected to the Zoram People's Movement (ZPM), giving the party a clear majority of 16 members in the 20-member council. Despite the numbers, the ZPM was blocked from forming the new executive, as Mizoram Governor VK Singh stepped in and imposed Governor's Rule, citing 'political instability.' Juhnee Chakma, president of Chakma Mahila Samiti voiced her concerns. 'Successive governments have consistently failed to meet the expectations of the public, with widespread poverty, unemployment, and unfulfilled promises contributing to a growing sense of disenchantment,' she said. Juhnee attributed the crisis to endemic factionalism among political parties, where internal rivalries and the thirst for power take precedence over effective governance. 'This is compounded by a weak democratic culture, where voters' voices are ignored, council resources misused, and corruption normalised. The very foundations of democracy in the CADC are being eroded,' she added. In the current 11th Council term, only one member—BJP's Nirupam Chakma has remained loyal to his party. The remaining 19 councillors have shifted allegiances multiple times in pursuit of personal political gain. Political analyst Lalhruaitluanga Kawlni, based in Aizawl, noted that council member Santosh Chakma has switched parties seven times in just two years. 'Two others have changed allegiance six times, and four have done so five times,' he said. 'With such instability, forming a sustainable government is nearly impossible.' Repeated efforts by student organisations and civil society groups to restore order have so far been in vain. Delegations have met the Governor several times, appealing for action. 'We've urged the Governor to consider an anti-defection law tailored for Sixth Schedule councils,' said Jyoti Bikash Chakma, president of the Central Young Chakma Association. 'But it's a slow and complex process, and until something concrete is done, this instability will continue.' 'Without an anti-defection law, no council members wanted to sit in the opposition bench, they changed their political alignments once they got an opportunity,' Jyoti Bikash added. According to Parbesh, the political volatility has caused severe disruption in basic services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure—directly affecting the quality of life in Chakma villages. 'Just look at our education system—it's in shambles,' he said. 'For 82 villages, there's just one college offering only arts, and only one higher secondary school. Merit-based recruitment is non-existent. Deserving candidates are constantly overlooked. Even the healthcare system is hanging by a thread.' The administrative paralysis has also triggered a financial crisis. The council currently faces a salary backlog of five months for its employees. A senior CADC official, asking not to be named, said the instability has pushed decision-makers to prioritise political survival over fiscal responsibility which led to short-sighted borrowing and poor financial planning that is damaging the council's long-term stability. 'There's a growing tendency to resort to ad-hoc measures, which only deepen the crisis,' the official said. 'The result is a government too distracted by power games to focus on actual governance.' Juhnee Chakma believes that only a united political front can break the cycle. 'It's time for our leaders to rise above petty differences and work toward a common vision for the CADC. We need to replace the culture of opportunism with one of accountability and constitutional integrity.' A senior official on condition of anonymity said the president's political instability is harmful for not only the CADC, but also the entire community. 'We are fed up with the political changes in the CADC, whatever development we have is being stalled because of their whimsical agendas,' H Nutan Chakma, president of All Chakma Employees of CADC, said. Nutan is a fisheries development officer. The CADC's recent history is a picture of dysfunction. During the 9th Council, five CEMs came and went in rapid succession. The 10th Council, formed in 2018, saw an unusual BJP-Congress alliance that lasted barely five months before collapsing just ahead of the Mizoram assembly elections that year. The current 11th Council has already cycled through two CEMs. With BJP council members now defected to the ZPM, Lakkhan Chakma staked his claim to become the third. That was when Governor Singh stepped in and imposed Governor's Rule citing 'constant political instability.' The CADC, an autonomous administrative body in Mizoram, representing the ethnic Chakma population, is one of 10 such bodies under the Sixth Schedule, operating across Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Established on April 29, 1972, under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it functions as a regional government, exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers over specific departments within its territory. In Mizoram, alongside the CADC, there are councils for the Lai and Mara communities.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"XXX vs Union Of India": Top Court To Hear Justice Varma's Challenge Today
New Delhi: Justice Yashwant Varma, who has approached the Supreme Court after its three-member panel recommended his removal, has kept his identity a secret while filing the petition. The Allahabad High Court judge, who made headlines after a massive cash recovery at his Delhi home after a fire, is referred to as "XXX" in the court documents. The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih will today hear Justice Varma's petition, which challenges the findings of the three-member panel. Following the huge cash recovery from his Delhi home, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal. In his challenge to the action against him, the judge has said he was not at his Delhi home when the cash was discovered. He said the top court panel probing the matter did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office". "This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says. Justice Varma has said the top court's in-house procedure to probe the matter was "improper and invalid" because there was no formal complaint against him. The judge has also flagged the top court's "unprecedented public disclosure of these unverified allegations via press release" and said it had subjected him to "media trial, resulting in irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career as a judicial officer". The proceedings, he said, had "violated natural justice, reasonableness and fairness under Article 14". "The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only 'incriminating' material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage (despite Petitioner's requests), denied opportunities of personal hearing, did not put any specific/tentative case to the Petitioner, impermissibly reversed the burden of proof without notice to the Petitioner, and effectively hindered any effective defence by the Petitioner," the judge has said in his petition. Justice Varma has said he had been asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline", failing which he was informed that action to initiate his "removal" would be initiated. The judge's counsel filed an application seeking permission to file the petition without disclosing his identity, Supreme Court records show.
