"Will RJD Take Action": Tej Pratap After MLA Threatens Panchayat Official
Former Bihar Health Minister and expelled RJD leader Tej Pratap Yadav has once again openly challenged RJD leadership, this time over the alleged objectionable remarks and threats made by party MLA Bhai Virendra targeting a Panchayat Secretary who belongs to the Scheduled Caste-Tribe (SC/ST) community.
Taking to the social media platform X, Tej Pratap wrote: "Will RJD also take action against its MLA Bhai Virendra, who made shameful remarks against the SC-ST society, contrary to the ideals of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, and threatened to kill? I was expelled from the party under the conspiracy of Jai Chands... Now it remains to be seen whether the party will show the same strictness on those who create a ruckus or not. Respect for the Constitution should be seen in conduct, not in speeches."
This direct attack has stirred a fresh political storm within the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and has brought simmering factional tensions and alleged organisational bias to the surface.
Tej Pratap's statement doesn't just target Bhai Virendra; it indirectly criticises the party's top brass, including RJD chief Lalu Prasad and Leader of Opposition in the state Assembly Tejashwi Yadav, his father and brother, respectively.
By referencing his expulsion and calling out "Jai Chands", Tej Pratap accused the leadership of double standards, suggesting selective enforcement of discipline within the party.
The controversy over Bhai Virendra's remarks has sparked outrage on social media, with several Dalit organisations and civil rights groups labelling the comments as anti-constitutional.
They have demanded an unconditional apology and disciplinary action against the MLA.
After the threatening call from Maner MLA Bhai Virendra, Panchayat Secretary Sandeep Kumar, posted in Maner block of Patna, lodged a formal complaint against him in the SC and ST Police Station on Monday.
Kumar alleged that the four-time legislator had threatened him during a phone call.
Bhai Virendra confirmed the authenticity of the call but defended his actions.
He admitted using "harsh words" but accused the Panchayat Secretary of showing disrespect and not following the protocol.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
History Today: How India abrogated Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir
Home Minister Amit Shah announced the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution in Parliament on August 5, 2019. This changed the equation of Jammu and Kashmir, which was granted special status under this law. On this day in 2024, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted from power and fled the country after violent nationwide protests broke out read more Union Home Minister Amit Shah was the one who had introduced the resolutions. File image/PTI One of the biggest decisions was taken on August 5, 2019, when the Indian government announced the abrogation of Article 370 in Parliament, effectively revoking the special status granted to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today, will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. On this day in 2024, former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country, facing violent nationwide protests and student-led opposition. Meanwhile, Hollywood actress Marilyn Monroe was found dead at her Los Angeles home on this day in 1962. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here is all that happened on this day. Abrogation of Article 370 in Parliament The Indian government announced the abrogation of Article 370 in Parliament, effectively revoking the special status granted to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Introduced in 1949, Article 370 allowed Jammu and Kashmir its own constitution and autonomy over internal matters, except defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Its removal marked a major constitutional and political shift. The process began with Home Minister Amit Shah introducing two resolutions in the Rajya Sabha: a resolution to recommend to the President of India that Article 370 be rendered inoperative, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. The latter proposed to bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two new Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, which would have a legislature, and Ladakh, which would be without one. The government used Article 370(3), which allows the President to declare the article inoperative, but only with the recommendation of the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. Since that body no longer existed, the government interpreted the state's legislative powers as resting with the Parliament under President's Rule. The move was met with a mix of celebration and controversy. Supporters hailed it as a step toward greater national integration and economic development in the region. Critics, including opposition parties and civil rights groups, called it unconstitutional and undemocratic, pointing to the lack of public consultation and the abrupt communication blackout imposed in the region. Sheikh Hasina flees Bangladesh In a first since its creation, Bangladesh saw its longest-serving Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, resign and flee the country after weeks of intense and often violent anti-government protests. At approximately 2:25 pm BST, Hasina departed by helicopter with her sister, ultimately landing at the Hindon Air Force base near Delhi via Agartala. Her departure was abrupt, with security and family urging her to flee swiftly without a farewell address. As she exited, crowds celebrated defiantly, climbing statues of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and scattering into the streets in jubilation. Student protests broke out across Bangladesh over Hasina's autocratic rule. File image/PTI Immediately after she fled, Army Chief General Waker‑uz‑Zaman addressed the nation while confirming her resignation and stating the military would form an interim government to restore order. President Mohammed Shahabuddin swiftly dissolved the parliament and released political prisoners, including opposition leader Khaleda Zia. Student leaders and civil society nominated Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus to lead the caretaker government, aiming to guide Bangladesh toward democratic governance and constitutional reform. His interim administration quickly began planning a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Marilyn Monroe found dead One of the most iconic stars of Hollywood, actress Marilyn Monroe, was found dead at her home in Los Angeles on August 5, 1962. Her housekeeper, Eunice Murray, discovered Monroe's lifeless body in the early morning hours, locked inside her bedroom. Authorities were called, and shortly after 4:00 am, her death was officially confirmed. She was found lying face down, clutching a telephone, with empty pill bottles nearby. The coroner's report listed the cause of death as 'probable suicide' due to acute barbiturate poisoning. Monroe had a well-documented history of depression, insomnia, and substance abuse, and she had previously been hospitalised for overdoses. Yet, the circumstances surrounding her death immediately sparked speculation and controversy, with many questioning whether it was accidental, intentional, or even the result of foul play. At the time of her death, Monroe was one of the most famous women in the world. Her films, beauty, and complicated personal life, including high-profile relationships with baseball legend Joe DiMaggio, playwright Arthur Miller, and alleged connections to President John F. Kennedy, had made her an enduring cultural figure. She had recently been fired from the film 'Something's Got to Give', but reports suggested she was negotiating a comeback. Her untimely passing sent shockwaves across the globe, extinguishing one of Hollywood's brightest stars. This Day, That Year >> On this day in 2011, Yingluck Shinawatra became the first female prime minister of Thailand. >> US President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers who were on strike on this day in 1981. >> The United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom signed the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty in Moscow in 1963.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC
The employer's discretion ends where the employee's dignity begins, the Supreme Court held while ruling that public sector employers cannot mechanically retire employees who acquire disabilities during service without first exploring meaningful alternatives for their redeployment. Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC 'While judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice. When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself,' said a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, in a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional right to dignity and equality in employment. The August 1 judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver who was compulsorily retired in 2016 after being diagnosed with colour blindness. Coming down hard on TSRTC for its failure to consider alternative roles for the driver, who had expressed willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post, the court held that this omission was not just an administrative lapse, but a violation of both statutory obligations and constitutional principles. The judgment drew upon the principle that public employers are duty-bound to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to employees who acquire disabilities during service. Retirement on medical grounds, the court said, must be a measure of last resort, only after all viable options for redeployment have been exhausted. 'The obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, dignity and equal treatment,' noted the bench. The judgment further drew strength from a consistent line of rulings to reaffirm that beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively to protect the rights of disabled employees. 'Employment security is central not only to individual dignity but also to familial survival,' said the court, emphasising that livelihood cannot be severed 'by the stroke of a medical certificate' without first exhausting all avenues for reassignment. The court cited the example of the driver seeking reassignment to the post of Shramik (helper) , a job that did not require normal colour vision. However, the Corporation did not even attempt to assess his suitability for such a role. According to the bench, the burden lies on the employer, not the employee, to prove that no suitable post exists or can be reasonably created. The court also referenced the pertinent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and a binding memorandum of settlement signed by TSRTC in 1979, which explicitly mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers with pay protection and continuity of service. The court ruled that TSRTC failed to comply with this binding obligation, adding that internal circulars cited by the Corporation in denying alternate employment, were merely administrative instructions and could not override statutory service conditions created by an industrial settlement. The bench further made it clear that even in the absence of such a settlement, constitutional and statutory principles demand the accommodation of employees who develop disabilities. 'This obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation,' it stated. The bench thus ordered the Corporation to appoint the driver to a suitable post consistent with his condition, at the same pay grade he held in 2016, within eight weeks. It also directed payment of 25% of arrears from the date of retirement until reinstatement and held that the intervening period must be treated as continuous service. 'In doing so, we not only vindicate the appellant's rights but also reaffirm our constitutional commitment to a just and humane employer-employee relationship,' the bench concluded.
