‘Control skyrocketing prices of construction materials'
The protestors said the spiralling prices of materials such as cement, M Sand, brick, steel and blue metal had badly affected construction activities and the drastically diminishing number of construction works had left thousands of labourers jobless. Hence, the State Government should take effective steps for controlling the prices of construction materials.
The pension being given to construction workers should be increased from ₹1,200 to ₹3,000 and the family pension from ₹500 to ₹1,000. The government should give ₹10,000 for performing the last rites of pensioners and increase the assistance for natural death of Tamil Nadu Unorganised Sector workers to ₹2 lakh. The educational assistance to children of construction workers should be given from Class 1, and marriage assistance of ₹50,000 should be given for their marriage.
The qualifying age for getting pension should be reduced from 60 to 55 and for bonus of ₹5,000 given to construction workers during festivals such as Ramzan, Deepavali and Christmas. Free travel facility in government buses should be extended to all construction workers, they said.
Association State president S. Mahalingam presided over the demonstration held near Government Siddha Medical College in Palayamkottai.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Who Are The Key Figures In The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case?
The 2008 Malegaon blast verdict is expected Thursday, 16 years after the incident. Seven accused, including BJP MP Pragya Thakur, faced trial. The 2008 Malegaon blast case verdict is expected on Wednesday, nearly 16 years after a bomb went off near a mosque in the textile town of Malegaon in Maharashtra, killing six people and injuring over 100. The verdict will be delivered by a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai, according to a report by PTI. Seven accused faced trial in the case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The other five are Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni. All were charged under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The blast took place on September 29, 2008, when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon during the holy month of Ramzan. The town, around 200 km from Mumbai, has a sizable Muslim population and has witnessed communal tensions in the past. Who Are the Accused? Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit: An Army officer at the time of the blast, Purohit was accused of supplying explosives and playing a central role in planning the attack. He was arrested in 2008 and spent nearly nine years in jail before being granted bail in 2017. He claims he was working undercover and had kept his superiors informed. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur: Former BJP MP from Bhopal, Thakur was accused of providing the motorcycle used in the blast. Initially arrested in 2008, she was granted bail on health grounds in 2017. The NIA later dropped charges under MCOCA against her but pursued others under the UAPA. Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay: A former Army officer, Upadhyay was allegedly part of Abhinav Bharat, a right-wing group, investigators linked to the blast. He is accused of participating in planning meetings and helping execute the plot. Sudhakar Dwivedi (Dayanand Pandey): A self-styled religious leader, Dwivedi was accused of being an ideological guide for the conspiracy. Prosecutors claimed he provided intellectual backing and helped coordinate the group. Ajay Rahirkar: He was the treasurer of Abhinav Bharat. Rahirkar allegedly helped fund the activities of the group and was charged with financing the blast conspiracy. Sudhakar Chaturvedi: Allegedly close to Purohit, Chaturvedi was accused of helping store explosives and taking part in planning meetings. Sameer Kulkarni: Also linked to Abhinav Bharat, Kulkarni was accused of participating in meetings that led to the planning of the blast. He was granted bail in 2017. What Did The NIA Say The case was first investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), before being handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2011. The trial formally began in 2018, and after the conclusion of arguments in April 2025, the court reserved its judgment. The NIA, in its final submission, said the accused conspired to carry out the explosion to create communal disharmony and destabilise internal security. It argued that the evidence presented in court was 'relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved," forming a clear chain of events leading to the blast. view comments Location : Mumbai, India, India First Published: July 30, 2025, 23:46 IST News india Who Are The Key Figures In The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case? Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Malegaon Case Verdict On Thursday: A Blast From The Past That Saw 17 Years Of Legal Twists & Turns
This judgment represents a pivotal moment in one of India's most lengthy and politically contentious terror cases Seventeen years after a devastating explosion tore through the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Maharashtra, a special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Mumbai is set to deliver its verdict on Thursday. This judgment represents a pivotal moment in one of India's most lengthy and politically contentious terror cases, marked by numerous twists, including changes in investigative bodies, allegations of fabricated evidence, and witnesses turning hostile. The Explosion and Its Consequences On September 29, 2008, an explosive device attached to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon, resulting in the deaths of six people and injuring over 100 others. The timing of the blast was particularly sensitive, occurring on the eve of the Hindu festival of Navratri and during the holy month of Ramzan, sparking immediate fears of communal unrest. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) initially led the investigation, quickly tracing the motorcycle's ownership and making several arrests, alleging the involvement of Hindu right-wing extremist groups. Among those who stood trial are former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. Other accused include Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. The ATS, in its initial probe, invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), accusing the group linked to Abhinav Bharat of conspiring to establish a 'Hindu Rashtra" and incite communal tensions. However, the case took a significant turn when the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe in 2011. In a 2016 supplementary chargesheet, the NIA dropped MCOCA charges, citing questionable application of the law by the ATS and alleging procedural irregularities and coercive tactics during the initial investigation. Although the NIA exonerated some accused, the special court, on December 27, 2017, decided that Sadhvi Pragya and six others would face trial under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including criminal conspiracy, murder, and promoting enmity between religious groups. The Extended Trial The trial began formally in 2018. Over the years, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, but faced significant challenges as 37 of them turned hostile, weakening crucial aspects of the case. Both prosecution and defence presented their final arguments, with the NIA advocating for severe punishment for the accused, arguing that the blast was intended to terrorise the Muslim community and disrupt internal security. Conversely, the accused have maintained their innocence, with Pragya Thakur alleging evidence manipulation and Purohit claiming a lack of material evidence linking him to the offence and alleging a flawed investigation. Much-anticipated Verdict The verdict on July 31 is highly anticipated for several reasons. Legal Implications: The judgment will decide the fate of the seven accused, who could face severe punishment, including life imprisonment under UAPA, or acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of the outcome, appeals to higher courts are likely, indicating that the legal saga may not end here. Political Ramifications: Given Sadhvi Pragya Thakur's status, the verdict carries significant political weight. A conviction could impact her political career and the BJP, while an acquittal would likely be seen as vindication by her supporters. The case has long been politicised, with both sides accusing each other of bias and manipulation. Credibility of Investigating Agencies: The verdict will also reflect on the investigations conducted by both the ATS and the NIA, especially given the NIA's claims of flaws in the initial ATS probe and the high number of hostile witnesses. It will test the Indian judiciary's ability to deliver justice in complex, politically sensitive cases that have spanned nearly two decades. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Special court verdict in Malegaon blast case tomorrow
A special court in Mumbai will pronounce its judgment in the Malegaon 2008 blast case on Thursday. Special Judge A K Lahoti will deliver the verdict, the trial on which had begun in 2018. Seven accused namely former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi are on trial facing charges, including criminal conspiracy and murder under the Indian Penal Code and sections of the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act. A bomb went off at a chowk in Malegaon, a town known for its powerloom industry, nearly 100 km northeast of Nashik in Maharashtra. It was Ramzan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and the blast, which took place in an area with a large Muslim population, killed six persons and injured 100. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which took over the investigation from the local police, suspected that the improvised explosive device (IED) had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle. It was suspected that the conspirators had consciously chosen the month of Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri to carry out the bombing, with an intention to cause communal rifts and endanger the internal security of the state. The ATS claimed that the registration number of the motorcycle that was found at the site of the explosion – MH-15-P-4572 – was fake, and that its engine number and chassis number had been erased. The ATS alleged that the owner of the bike was Pragya Singh Thakur alias Sadhwi Poornachetanand Giri and arrested her on October 23, 2008. Thakur's arrest and interrogation, the ATS claimed, led it to the other accused. While the probe was initially led by then ATS chief Hemant Karkare, he was killed in the Mumbai 2008 terror attacks on November 26, 2008. The ATS continued its probe and filed a chargesheet in January 2009 against 11 accused claiming that they were part of the conspiracy to execute the blast. The ATS claimed that the accused had attended meetings, where discussions were held on targeting Muslims as 'revenge' and Malegaon was chosen for its dominantly Muslim population. It was also alleged that the accused had discussed working towards 'Aryawart' or a Hindu Rashtra with its own Constitution and flag, and a 'government in exile'. The ATS also claimed that an organisation founded by Purohit in 2006, Abhinav Bharat, was linked to the conspiracy. The ATS had also invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act in the case. In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the central investigation agency that was set up after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The NIA began a probe but in its chargesheet said that due to the passage of time, no additional evidence could be recovered from the spot. It went on to rerecord statements of some of the witnesses who denied their earlier statements recorded by the ATS. Pointing to 'lacunae' in the case, the NIA chargesheet filed on May 13, 2016, dropped the charges under MCOCA, saying that the manner in which the organised crime law was invoked by the ATS was 'questionable'. It said there was no evidence against Thakur, as the motorcycle registered in Thakur's name had been in the possession of absconding accused Ramchandra Kalsangra, who was using it well before the blast. It also said that since MCOCA was not applied, confessions made under the Act were inadmissible as evidence. Most of the ATS's case against the accused relied on confessions, and the NIA said that the confession of Chaturvedi was an 'outcome of torture'. On December 27, 2017, the court accepted the NIA's contention that MCOCA cannot be invoked in the case. It said that the seven accused – Thakur, Purohit, retired Major Upadhyay, Kulkarni, Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, and Sudhakar Dwivedi – would face trial under UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The trial in the case began in December 2018. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal said that 323 witnesses were examined of which nearly 40 turned hostile. The testimonies of these witnesses were mainly relating to Purohit and the alleged conspiracy meetings. These witnesses denied having participated in or heard any discussions by the accused about the conspiracy to carry out a bomb blast. Some of the witnesses also alleged that they had been coerced, illegally detained, and threatened by the ATS into giving false statements naming certain persons. In its final arguments, the prosecution submitted that there was evidence in respect of Call Data Records, and forensic evidence to show that the explosive device had been planted in the LML motorcycle. There was also evidence to show the presence of the accused at the places where the conspiracy meetings had taken place, and other documentary proof, it said. The accused claimed that with witnesses turning hostile, the conspiracy was not proven at all. The accused also submitted that the NIA chargesheet itself showed that the ATS probe was 'biased' and claimed that despite the serious nature of allegations, there was no evidence to show any conspiracy, including any proof on where the explosives were sourced from, transported and assembled. The court is expected to pronounce the judgment around 11 am.
