Bharat Mata row: Kerala CM notifies Raj Bhavan that it can only display national symbols at Governor's functions
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has notified Raj Bhavan that the Constitution mandates that it could display only national symbols at State functions attended by Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar.
Officials confirmed that Mr. Vijayan had issued a communique to the Governor's office based on Wednesday's (June 25, 2025) Cabinet finding that Constitutional protocol forbids using, displaying, or exhibiting political and religious iconography at events graced by the Governor as de jure head of State.
However, officials said, the exact wording of the Government-Raj Bhavan communication remained classified per official protocol and custom.
The Cabinet had weighed the contentious matter in the wake of Raj Bhavan 'repeatedly using' what the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government and the Opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) described as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) Hindu nationalist depiction of a saffron-flag-holding Mother India (Bharat Mata) astride a lion at functions attended by Mr. Arlekar.
The ruling front and the Opposition accused the Raj Bhavan of 'superseding' national symbols such as the national flag and the national anthem by using images and rituals with political and religious overtones, including paying obeisance to the 'RSS' Bharat Mata portrait' at the Governor's public functions.
Matters came to a head with Mr. Arlekar digging his heels in Raj Bhavan's position that Bharat Mata was emblematic of a unified Mother India and on par with other national symbols.
Soon, the acrimonious political row over the use of Bharat Mata's picture at gubernatorial functions spilt into the streets, with Students Federation of India (SFI) and Kerala Students Union (KSU) activists protesting outside the Kerala University Senate Hall on Wednesday.
Mr. Arlekar had arrived at the auditorium on the invitation of Sree Padmanabha Seva Samathi, a private trust, to preside over a function observing the 50th anniversary of the national emergency. A tense situation unfolded after BJP workers also mustered in strength at the venue to express solidarity with Mr. Arlekar.
Varsity moves SPC
Meanwhile, on Thursday, Kerala University moved the State Police Chief (SPC) against the trust's office-bearers for going ahead with the function despite the registrar denying permission for the event. The university has also reported damage to public property.
Meanwhile, the Cantonment police have booked scores of SFI, KSU and BJP activists on the charge of unlawful assembly and rioting outside the Senate Hall.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
40 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India refused to sign SCO statement as it did not reflect stance on terrorism, says MEA
India did not sign a joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting held in China as the document did not reflect New Delhi's position against terror, said the Ministry of External Affairs on Thursday. 'India wanted concerns and terrorism reflected in the document, which was not acceptable to one particular country,' said Randhir Jaiswal, the ministry's spokesperson, during a press briefing. The joint statement reportedly did not contain references to the Pahalgam terror attack that took place on April 22 and killed 26 persons, according to The Indian Express. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional inter-governmental body, was established in 2001. Its members are India, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Belarus. At the organisation's meeting in Qingdao, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh called upon the member countries to come together to 'fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations', Jaiswal said during the briefing. Singh also reiterated the need to uphold that the 'perpetrators, organisers, financers and sponsors of reprehensible acts of terrorism', including cross-border terrorism, need to be held accountable and brought to justice, the spokesperson added. The defence minister mentioned during the meeting that the region's biggest challenges are related to peace, security and trust deficits, with increasing radicalisation, extremism and terrorism being the root cause of these problems, The Indian Express reported. 'Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of police and provide shelter to terrorists,' Singh said, in an indirect reference to Pakistan, according to the newspaper. 'There should be no place for such double standards. SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organisation] should not hesitate to criticise such nations'. The defence minister also talked about Operation Sindoor, saying that India launched its strikes in response to the Pahalgam attack in Jammu and Kashmir. India exercised its right to defend against terrorism and pre-empt as well as deter further cross-border attacks, the newspaper quoted him as saying. The terror attack at Baisaran near the town of Pahalgam on April 22 left 26 persons dead and 16 injured. The terrorists targeted tourists after asking their names to ascertain their religion, the police said. All but three of those killed were Hindu. In retaliation, the Indian military on May 7 carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and eight defence personnel were killed. On May 10, India and Pakistan reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following a four-day conflict.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
RS panel likely to ask Centre to define ‘proved misbehavior' & ‘incapacity'—grounds for removing judges
Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the Parliament can initiate steps to remove a Supreme Court judge 'on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity'. The provision is also applicable on high court judges through Article 218 of the Constitution. Chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal, the 31-member Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, which met on 24 June, is expected to hold at least two more rounds of deliberations before finalising its recommendations, according to MPs who attended the previous meeting. New Delhi: At a time Justice Yashwant Varma is facing a potential impeachment motion over a cash haul from his official residence, a Rajya Sabha committee is likely to recommend to the Centre to define what counts as 'proved misbehavior' and 'incapacity'—the two grounds for removing Supreme Court and high court judges. According to sources, in their interventions, the members of the Rajya Sabha panel including BJP as well as Opposition MPs, underlined the need to clearly define misbehaviour and incapacity. The justice department secretary was also present in the meeting. 'Members feel that this remains a grey area. While incapacity is largely understood, misbehaviour, unless defined, can have many interpretations. Either Article 124 needs to be amended or there needs to be a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill like the one introduced during the UPA II government that made an attempt in this direction,' said an MP. Currently, the removal procedure of judges is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, was passed by the Lok Sabha, however, it lapsed after it was never taken up for consideration by the Rajya Sabha. The bill had listed nine definitions of misbehaviour including 'making demands for consideration in cash or kind for giving judgments', committing an offence involving moral turpitude, wilfully giving false information in the declaration of assets and liabilities. It also laid out judicial standards followed by judges. It sought to bar judges from 'entering into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters which are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination by him'. A member of the parliamentary panel said that many MPs flagged the need for such a law citing the example of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav who made controversial remarks at an event of the Vishva Hindu Parishad in December 2024. The UPA I government had given Cabinet nod to Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill which proposed a permanent mechanism to deal with corruption allegations against judges. But it was later shelved. Currently, the 16-point 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life', adopted by the SC in 1997, deals with code of conduct for the judiciary. 'The fact that there are flagrant violations of these guidelines was discussed in the meeting,' said the MP. Sources said some MPs suggested revisiting the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment, which mandated that the sanction of the Chief of Justice of India was needed to register criminal cases against judges of the higher judiciary. 'Some MPs said that if the Supreme Court can set a timeline for the President to clear Bills, the Parliament should also set a timeline for the CJI to take a call on such requests for sanctions on a time-bound manner. It's been 34 years since that judgment,' said an MP. On 14 March, wads of currency notes were discovered in a room at Justice Varma's official residence in New Delhi, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court. Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. He has rejected the allegations against him in response to probes undertaken by the Delhi High Court chief justice and a committee set up by the SC. The committee submitted its report on 3 May, saying that it is 'firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations' against Justice Varma and that the misconduct found proved is 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings' for his removal. Earlier, ThePrint reported that members of the committee suggested that like in bureaucracy, there should be a cooling-off period of 5 years for judges before they can take up post-retirement jobs. In its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha 7 February 2024, the Parliamentary committee had stated that it was of the view that the retirement age of judges should be raised and 'the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.' 'The committee suggests that the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges may be comprehensively studied again and relooked upon by the Ministry,' it had said in the report. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Justice Varma row: Congress seeks SC-appointed panel's report to decide its stand on impeachment proposal
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Hit-and-run case: Jagan's quash petition posted for hearing on June 27
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh posted the quash petition filed by YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in the case of death of an elderly man, Ch. Singaiah, during the former's recent visit to Rentapalla village in Palnadu district, to June 27. Singaiah had allegedly been crushed under the vehicle in which Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy was going in a rally, for which he was named as A2 under Section 105, read with 49, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS), 2023. During the hearing of the petition on Thursday, Justice Lakshmana Rao agreed to take it up among fresh matters on Friday (June 27) as Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy's lawyers pressed for urgent orders for interim protection amidst insistence by the counsels for the State that the matter be put off to July 1. The Judge observed that perhaps no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner (Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy). In his plea, Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy submitted that he was innocent and the narration of the facts of the case indicated that the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned to register a cognisable offence was not entirely objective. He alleged that the sequence of events leading to the registration of the FIR and further alterations thereof showed that the charges were tailored to implicate him with political vendetta and political malice. The former Chief Minister contended that the primary motivation for the State to implicate him in the case was to deter him from engaging with people of the State to espouse the cause of greater public good, whereas his right to move and participate in meetings and his right to speech and expression were consecrated fundamental rights under the Constitution. He said the FIR filed against him was intended to stifle political dissent against the ruling parties, and it amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The actions of the State in attempting to arrest him despite the absence of a prima facie evidence and non-fulfilment of the statutory requirements were wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his fundamental rights, he argued. 'Arrest is an extraordinary measure that must be resorted to in exceptional circumstances such as when there is a risk of absconding, tampering with the evidence, and influencing of witnesses,' Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy submitted, pointing out that he did not fall in any one of those categories.
