DMK failed to fight for Vanniyars: BJP ally party leader protests caste survey delay
He recalled the sacrifices of 21 protesters, including 15 from Villupuram, who were killed during earlier agitations for reservation. 'They lost their lives so that the community's children could study and live with self-respect. Stalin should immediately bring internal reservation for Vanniyars,' he demanded.According to Anbumani, the Supreme Court had clarified that the Tamil Nadu government has full authority to implement internal reservation without the need for a caste survey or approval from the Centre. Yet, he alleged, the DMK government continues to delay.'Even a panchayat leader has the authority to conduct a caste survey under the Indian Statistical Act, 2008. Yet, Stalin claims he does not have the authority. Other states like Karnataka, Telangana and Bihar have conducted surveys under the same Act,' he argued.Accusing the DMK of being 'against social justice,' Anbumani pointed out that while 23 of DMK's 133 MLAs and five of its MPs belong to the Vanniyar community, they were chosen for their caste yet failed to secure the community's rights.He also credited former chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswami with granting 10.5 per cent internal reservation to Vanniyars after much struggle, but claimed the DMK did not pursue the legal battle properly, resulting in setbacks in court.PMK cadres expressed their anger by throwing a chappal at Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's poster and tearing it apart.Calling the Vanniyars the single largest community in Tamil Nadu, at about 18 per cent of the population, Anbumani said they deserved a proportional share in reservation. He also announced that the PMK is preparing for its 'next stage' of protests, which would include filling prisons in a democratic manner to intensify the fight for reservation.'The foundation of all social justice lies in the struggles of working people. This protest will strengthen that foundation and ensure rightful reservations for all communities,' he concluded.- EndsMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Guidelines to protect lawyers from summons is not immunity: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the guidelines proposed to protect lawyers from being summoned by investigating agencies for giving legal advice would not confer immunity on legal professionals who commit a crime. A view of Supreme Court (Sonu Mehta/HT FILE PHOTO) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation during its hearing on a suo motu petition to frame guidelines to shield lawyers from investigating agencies summoning them for giving advice to clients facing criminal prosecution. The court asked the country's two top law officers, Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to study the suggestions received from lawyer bodies and propose the possible directions that can be issued. The matter was taken up by the court following two instances where senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probing the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. The ESOPs numbering over 22.7 million were valued at ₹250 crore. Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, asked the court not to lay down any guidelines, reasoning that stray incidents such as these were condemnable but should not become the basis for the courts to establish guidelines. 'individual instances should not be sufficient to change the legal framework. As lawyers, we want to be protected. But not everyone may be discharging their duty credibly. There may be a possibility of summoning them within the framework of the law. But any future judicial legislation in this regard will make the task of investigating agencies counter-productive,' Mehta said. The bench said, 'We cannot ignore the recent instances. An eminent lawyer had been issued summons. We have made it clear that there is no protection for any crime. If somebody is assisting the client in destroying evidence, certainly they can be accused of destruction of evidence. But can that be done for giving advice?' The two lawyers' bodies of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) submitted their suggestions to the court. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also SCBA president, submitted that in cases where the investigation agency has direct evidence against a lawyer, the same can be considered by the magistrate. If the magistrate feels that the evidence is admissible, summons can be issued, Singh said. SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel, who submitted the association's submissions, traced the protection afforded under the law to lawyers that protects privileged communication between the lawyer and client under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that replaced the Indian Evidence Act. Similar protection is also available under the Companies Act. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, assisting the court, pointed out that the guidelines should also address the issue of receiving fees for the legal opinion tendered to a firm or person facing criminal prosecution. Attorney General R Venkatramani, assisting the court in the suo motu proceedings, assured the court that he will examine all suggestions and report back with his observations. The court asked both AG and SG to examine the suggestions and revert on the next date of hearing on August 12, when the bench will consider passing further directions. SCAORA, which had described the ED summons to the two senior lawyers as a 'chilling signal to the legal community', told the court that the unwarranted summons to advocates to disclose information concerning clients involved in criminal proceedings undermines the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship and poses a serious threat to the integrity of India's criminal justice system. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented SCAORA, pointed out a recent instance from Kolkata where the laptop of a lawyer practising before the Calcutta high court was seized. 'On the laptop, there is not just information about one client but all his clients. It is the lifeline of the lawyer's practice,' Nadkarni said, expressing concern over the search and seizure of lawyers conducted by investigating agencies that need judicial oversight. The submissions handed over by the SCAORA office bearers pointed out that the Bar Council of India rules explicitly prohibit advocates from committing, directly or indirectly, any breach of the obligations to their client, breach of which amounts to professional misconduct. 'The duty to maintain confidentiality is not merely statutory but is deeply embedded in the ethical and professional framework governing advocates in India. Disclosing privileged communication without client consent may constitute professional misconduct and attract disciplinary consequences,' SCAORA said.
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court grants bail to three PFI accused, cites lack of prima facie evidence of terrorism
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted bail to three accused persons associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI), observing that mere participation in meetings, speeches or karate training sessions cannot, prima facie, be construed as committing a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More passed the order while hearing criminal appeals filed by Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi, and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim alias Irfan Milli, who had been denied bail by the trial court in a case registered under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act. Also read: Devendra Fadnavis calls PFI a 'silent killer', says will work towards shutting down outfit in Maharashtra 'When the FIR was registered and appellants were arrested, PFI was not declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Merely because appellants participated in the meetings, seminars or physical training of karate etc., prima facie, it cannot be said that they have indulged in any terrorist act,' the Bench observed. In its detailed order, the court noted that mere participation in seminars or camps would not, prima facie, amount to a terrorist act. 'Though, weapons are recovered from appellant, it is not the case of prosecution that those were used for any terrorist activity and/or for toppling the Government,' the order stated. Background of the Case On September 21, 2022, Assistant Police Inspector Rahul Rode of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Aurangabad, lodged an FIR based on secret information alleging that a karate training camp for Muslim youth was held on November 23, 2021, near Jama Masjid in Chikalthana, under the banner 'Healthy People Healthy Nation'. It was alleged that PFI Secretary Mohsin Nadvi delivered a speech stating that Muslims in India were facing mob lynching and attacks by Hindu organisations, and urged physical preparedness in view of such challenges. A similar gathering was reportedly held on November 27, 2021, at Samosa Ground, Katkat Gate, where PFI's Aurangabad district president Irfan Milli and General Secretary Saber addressed the attendees. They allegedly accused the Central Government of conspiring against Muslims and called for armed resistance, urging the youth to join the PFI in large numbers. According to intelligence inputs received on July 3 and 4, 2022, a secret arms and physical training camp was held by the PFI at a hall near Masjid-a-Mansab Mir in Naregaon. The camp, allegedly attended by district president Imran Shaha and select trainees, was said to involve preparations to fight the Indian Government in defence of their religion. It was further alleged that PFI committee members Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel (Aurangabad), Abdul Hadi (Jalna), and Parvez Khan (Aurangabad) delivered inflammatory speeches criticising the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Hijab ban, and the ban on Triple Talaq, characterising them as anti-Muslim. The speeches allegedly incited unrest and called for armed jihad. On August 14, 2022, a gathering of Ulema was reportedly held under the 'Save The Republic' campaign, attended by Maulana Irfan Milli and Maulana Nasir Nadvi. At the event, the speakers allegedly criticised the Central Government, claiming that Muslims were being harassed through the NRC and that 20 lakh Muslims were being targeted for elimination. It was further alleged that they spoke about establishing a Sharia-based government and called on Muslim youth to stockpile weapons, even suggesting foreign assistance if necessary. Following these developments, an FIR was registered at the ATS Kalachowki Police Station in Mumbai, invoking Sections 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Sections 121A, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The petitioners were arrested on September 22, 2022. During the investigation, authorities allegedly recovered material linking them to ISIS, including a document titled 'India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India (Internal Document - Not for Circulation)' from Sayyad Faisal, along with an Urdu book titled 'Babri Masjid Kahi Hum Bhul Na Jaye' (Lest we forget the Babri mosque). In February 2023, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 121A, 122, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Arguments Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate N.R. Shaikh submitted that the FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, and arrests made on the following day - prior to PFI being declared an unlawful organisation on September 27, 2022. Therefore, he argued, no offence under the UAPA could be invoked at the time. He contended that no incriminating material or overt act of terrorism was attributed to the appellants, and that only literature had been recovered from their electronic devices. Teaching karate, he argued, does not constitute terrorism under the UAPA. While ₹8 lakh was found in one account, it was not linked to any terror-related activity, he added. He also pointed out that the appellants had spent more than two years in custody and that only five out of 145 witnesses had been examined, indicating slim chances of an early conclusion of trial. Advocate Javed R. Shaikh, appearing for Shaikh Irfan, added that although a seven-inch knife, a Rampuri knife, a 'fighter', and a 1.5-foot sword were recovered from his client, there was no evidence to suggest these were used in any attempt to overthrow the government. At most, he argued, the matter would fall under the Arms Act, which prescribes a maximum sentence of two years - less than the duration already spent by the accused in custody. Opposing the appeals, Additional Public Prosecutor Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar submitted that the accused were involved in unlawful activities that threatened national security. Describing PFI as a radical organisation engaged in seditious acts and secret meetings, the Additional Public Prosecutor also cited the 'Mission 2047' document recovered from Sayyad Faisal as indicative of a larger conspiracy. Court Observations The Bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations, given that the trial was still ongoing. However, it observed, 'On the ground of parity also the appellants are entitled for bail. Prima facie, we do not find reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the accused are true. Therefore, mandate contained in proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would not be applicable to the case of the accused. The prosecution could not point out criminal antecedents of appellants. Section 13(1)(b) prescribes maximum punishment of seven years, out of which appellants have already undergone two years and eight months imprisonment.' Noting that all three accused had spent over two years and eight months in custody while only five of 145 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the court emphasised the importance of a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench directed the Special Court to release the appellants on bail under appropriate and stringent conditions, including surrendering their passports and full cooperation with the ongoing trial.
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Assam Govt orders closure of 28 stone quarries, 18 crushers near Kaziranga
1 2 Guwahati: The state govt has ordered the closure of 28 stone quarries and 18 stone crushers in the Dolamara area near Kaziranga National Park, adhering to a Supreme Court mandate prohibiting mining activities. Furthermore, 10 mining permits and related operations, including stone extraction, sand mahals, and sand-cum-gravel mining contracts in the Rangsali area, have been terminated. This was confirmed by minister of state for environment, forest and climate change, Kirti Vardhan Singh, in a written response to inquiries from Assam MP and deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi. In "TN Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India & Ors" case, the Supreme Court in its order on April 12, 2019 had directed the Assam DGP and the SP concerned to ensure that no illegal mining and transportation of illegally mined materials took place in the Kaziranga National Park area and in the entire catchment area of rivers or streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. The minister further stated in the Lok Sabha that the govt has taken significant steps to mitigate the risk of road accidents involving wild animals and ecological degradation around Kaziranga. These steps include the construction of underpasses, elevated corridors, and culverts to facilitate the safe passage of animals across highways. The steps, as the minister stated, also include the identification and protection of wildlife corridors to maintain habitat connectivity and minimise the need for animals to cross roads. This is in addition to the installation of eco-friendly barriers and fencing along roads to guide animals toward designated safe crossing points. Implementation of speed-reducing measures such as rumble strips and speed breakers near wildlife crossing zones and putting up cautionary signboards to alert drivers about wildlife presence and enforce speed regulations are other steps taken by the govt. On the issue of the diversion of eco-sensitive land near Kaziranga for commercial or infrastructure projects despite its Unesco world heritage status, the minister said proposals were submitted by the state govt for consideration of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life (SCNBWL) after due recommendation of the State Board for Wild Life. Two proposals for diversion — construction of a four-lane tunnel across the Brahmaputra between Gohpur and Numaligarh and widening and improvement of the existing carriageway to four-lane construction from Kaliabor to Numaligarh — were recommended by the SCNBWL.
