Ramadoss requests police to stop Anbumani's yatra
Ramadoss said Anbumani cannot undertake any political tour without his permission first. The statement comes a day ahead of Anbumani's proposed statewide campaign titled 'Urimai Meetpu Payanam' (rights retrieval march), which is to begin from Thiruporur. Ramadoss supporters see it as an attempt by Anbumani to rally support in the wake of a rift with his father.
"I am the party. I am the leader. There is no separate faction led by Anbumani within PMK," Ramadoss told reporters at his Thailapuram farmhouse near Tindivanam.
He urged police not to grant permission for the yatra, alleging that such a political event would create law and order issues in northern districts. Ramadoss' supporters have also submitted a petition to the DGP requesting prohibition of the tour. "Anyone defying party leadership will be removed. A new list of party officials has already been submitted to the Election Commission," he said, adding that Anbumani has not sought permission for the yatra and should refrain from using the party's name or flag.
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
Ramadoss had in April demoted Anbumani from party president to working president, following differences on alliance decisions and internal appointments. Tensions between the two have since intensified, with both attempting to assert control over the party. "As of now, official party headquarters is at Thailapuram. If anyone claims it is in Chennai or elsewhere, it is illegal. Similarly, if anyone other than me claims to be party leader, legal action will follow," he said.Ramadoss also said that Anbumani cannot appoint office bearers or carry out party activities independently as he was only working president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
Fake EPICs and duplicate Voter IDs: What the law says, according to an expert
The Election Commission of India (ECI) issued a clarification after a controversy broke out regarding duplicate EPIC numbers. Several media reports had raised concerns that these duplicates could indicate voter fraud or fake ECI clearly stated that identical EPIC numbers across multiple records don't automatically mean fake voters. However, a single person can not have two different EPIC number, dive in to know IS AN EPIC CARD?An EPIC (Electors Photo Identity Card) is the official photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India to every registered voter. It serves as proof of identity during elections and ensures that no one can vote more than once. The EPIC number is the unique alphanumeric code printed on every voter's ID card, it remains constant even if some personal details on the card BETWEEN VOTER ID AND EPIC NUMBERVoter ID usually refers to the physical card you receive after registering as a EPIC number is the unique identifier printed on this don't need both separately to vote. The Voter ID with your EPIC number is sufficient proof of your ONE PERSON HAVE TWO EPIC CARDS?According to Civil Advocate Nishant Sharma, District Court, 'Every time a voter edits or updates their information, whether it's a change in address, name, or photograph, they must submit their old card. The Election Commission issues a revised card only after verifying supporting documents, but the EPIC number remains the same.'Having two separate EPIC cards, especially with different numbers or identities, is a legal offence, he also adds that a Booth Level Officer is assigned to one booth and is responsible for verifying the voter list, checking for any expired, shifted, or new voters. They conduct door-to-door verification, cross-check documents, and update the records online as per Election Commission protocols and submit all the information to their electoral offices."If someone gets a new voter ID made in Delhi using a different address or changes their zone, only one can remain valid. The other must be removed for the new one to work." he adds IS THE PUNISHMENT?"Possessing two EPICs, more than one voter ID card, or even providing false information during voter registration is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with up to 1 year imprisonment or a fine, or both," he adds- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Police complaint filed against Tejashwi Yadav over possession of two voter IDs
A police complaint has been lodged against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav at Patna's Digha Police Station, alleging he possesses multiple voter ID cards. Advocate Rajiv Ranjan filed the complaint, though an FIR is pending. This follows the Election Commission's request for Yadav to surrender a voter ID card he claimed to have, despite its unofficial status. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A police complaint has been filed against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav in Patna's Digha Police Station for over allegedly having to voter ID cards. The complaint was filed by advocate Rajiv Ranjan. However, an FIR is yet to be filed against the Bihar assembly Leader of comes after the Election Commission on Sunday asked Yadav to 'hand over for investigation' a voter ID card that he claimed to be in possession of despite having been 'not issued officially'.On Saturday, Yadav had demonstrated an online search, with the EPIC number, to claim that his name was missing in the draft electoral rolls published as part of special intensive revision (SIR) and, upon rebuttal from the authorities concerned, alleged that his voter ID card number was 'changed'.In a letter addressed to the former deputy CM, the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Patna Sadar-cum-Electoral Registration Officer for Digha assembly constituency said, 'Our preliminary investigation suggests that the EPIC number you mentioned at the press conference on August 2 was not issued officially. You are therefore requested to hand over the EPIC card in original for detailed investigation'.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court dismisses plea to initiate process of appointment of T.N. DGP
The Madras High Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and Home Secretary to initiate the process of appointment of Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF). First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to entertain the PIL plea on the ground that the tenure of the incumbent DGP/HoPF Shankar Jiwal had not come to an end so far and therefore, it was premature on the part of the petitioner to approach the court. In his affidavit, the petitioner N. Dhamodharan, 74, submitted he had retired from service as the Superintendent of Police in Special Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (SB-CID), after serving in the Police department for 35 years and hence, he was highly interested in the efficient functioning of the department. He said, the Supreme Court had laid down broad guidelines for the appointment of DGP/HoPF of every State and Union Territory (UT) in the country in the well-known 2006 Prakash Singh's case. The guidelines were issued to avoid complaints of short tenure and frequent transfer of the officers heading the police force. Pursuant to Supreme Court orders, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued elaborate proceedings related to the composition of the empanelment committee and insisted that the State government's proposal be sent at least three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP/HoPF. Stating Mr. Jiwal was due to retire from service on August 31, 2025, the PIL petitioner claimed that the State government had not forwarded the proposal along with a list of eligible officers to the UPSC so far despite a specific representation made by him in this regard on June 6, 2025. The petitioner further alleged the State government was deliberately delaying the initiation of the process of appointment of DGP only to make an officer in the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) as DGP/HoPF (in-charge), especially when the Assembly elections were fast-approaching. According to him, eight officers in the rank of DGP were available in the State, and the names of all those officers should be sent to the UPSC's empanelment committee, which would select three of them on the basis of merit and then ask the State government to appoint one of them as DGP/HoPF.
