Mallikarjun Kharge Hosts Dinner For INDIA bloc MPs In Delhi
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge hosted a dinner for the INDIA bloc MPs on Monday that was attended by the likes of Sharad Pawar, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, amid the opposition's concerted bid to close ranks against the electoral rolls revision in Bihar and alleged poll rigging.
Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav, Dimple Yadav and Jaya Bachchan, DMK's K Kanimozhi and TR Baalu, RJD's Misa Bharti, Shiv Sena (UBT)'s Sanjay Raut and Priyanka Chaturvedi, Congress' Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were among several opposition MPs who attended the dinner at the Hotel Taj Palace here.
While mostly INDIA bloc MPs were at the dinner, Sanjay Singh and Sandeep Pathak of the AAP, which is not part of the grouping, also attended.
The dinner comes just days after top INDIA bloc leaders, in a show of unity, had a dinner meeting at the residence of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi where they vowed to fight against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar as well as what they described as the "vote chori model of the BJP and Election Commission".
That was the first physical meeting of top leaders of the opposition bloc since they last met in June 2024 at Kharge's residence, soon after the Lok Sabha elections.
During that meeting, Rahul Gandhi had given a presentation on the "vote chori model" being allegedly perpetrated by the BJP through the Election Commission.
Earlier on Monday, opposition MPs, including Rahul Gandhi, Kharge and Pawar, took out a protest march from the Parliament House to the Election Commission office against the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and alleged "vote chori", but were stopped midway by the police and briefly detained amid high drama.
As opposition MPs, wearing white caps with a red cross on the words 'SIR' and "vote chori", started walking from Parliament's Makar Dwar to the EC office, carrying placards and banners, they were stopped by the police by putting up barricades outside the PTI Building.
Many of the MPs sat on the road and raised slogans while some women parliamentarians climbed the barricades. They were later whisked away by police in buses lined up along the road and taken to the Parliament Street Police Station.
All the MPs were later released.
"This fight is not political, but it is aimed at saving the Constitution. This fight is for 'one man, one vote' and we want a clean, pure voter list," Rahul Gandhi said as he was being taken away in a bus after being detained.
"They cannot talk as the truth is before the entire nation." After being released from police detention, he said, "This has not just happened in Bengaluru, but in different constituencies across the country. The Election Commission knows this; it knows that this data will explode. We will bring out in the open what it is trying to control and hide, and it will explode. The EC knows this." Gandhi on Thursday cited data from the 2024 Lok Sabha polls to claim that over 1 lakh votes were "stolen" in the Mahadevapura assembly segment in Karnataka through five types of manipulation, including duplicate voters, fake and invalid addresses, and single-address voters.
The opposition is already up in arms over SIR in Bihar and has been protesting in both Houses of Parliament against it, alleging that the EC's exercise is aimed at "disenfranchising voters" in the state ahead of the assembly elections due later this year.
Their demand for a discussion on SIR in both houses has been rejected, with the government contending that no discussion on the functioning of a constitutional body can be taken up in Parliament.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would set up a search committee for the appointment of vice chancellors to two universities in Kerala to end a stalemate between state government and the governor and told the two sides to submit four names each within a day for consideration as members of the search panel. SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'In the larger interest, since you have not been able to arrive at a consensus, we will appoint a Search Committee.' The five-member search committee will have four members along with a nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The court asked the lawyers representing the two constitutional authorities to suggest four names each out of which the court will constitute the committee. On July 30, the court had expressed anguish over the prevailing stalemate over the appointment of vice chancellors to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Digital University of Kerala. It had directed the process of appointing regular V-Cs to commence soon and urged both sides to avoid confrontation and work harmoniously without bringing in politics keeping the best interests of students and the institutions in mind. On Wednesday, two weeks after its last order, the court observed, 'We are requesting you with folded hands. The Chancellor (Governor) and government should sit over a cup of coffee and resolve this. Why create this stalemate at the stage of appointment of the Search Committee.' Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for the governor Rajendra Arlekar said that pursuant to the last order, the Governor held extensive consultations with the state government. He told the court that, as directed by the court,, the Chancellor issued an order extending the tenure of temporary V-C at APJ Abdul Kalam University till the appointment of a regular V-C. The state opposed this notification claiming that the Chancellor did not consult the state before issuing the notification. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the state along with advocate CK Sasi said, 'Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, allows appointment of VC to be recommended by the state. There is no power struggle but the Chancellor wants to ensure there is no role of the Kerala government in appointment of V-C. So the very nature of appointment affects federal structure envisaged under the Constitution.' The court told AG Venkataramani that its July 30 order had reproduced section 13(7) of the Act emphasising that the procedure as per law should be followed. However, since it was undertaking the process of appointing regular V-C on its own, it said, 'It is our request to the state. Don't precipitate the issue with regard to temporary V-C appointments. Let us put an end to this impasse.' AG Venkataramani pointed out that the similar issue prevailed with regard to temporary appointment of V-C for Digital University, governed by Section 11(10) of Digital University Act, which is akin to section 13(7). He informed the court that the Chancellor has been receiving requests from the V-C complaining about no financial audit being done at the University for the past five years. Gupta said that the unilateral approach adopted by the Governor was struck down by the Kerala high court last year,which held the constitution of the Search Committee to be contrary to the statute. He said that the state on July 12 initiated the process for having a Search Committee to appoint regular V-Cs, but the Chancellor formed a separate committee. The AG clarified that the committee proposed by the Chancellor is as per the UGC regulations. However, Kerala government maintained that the power to constitute a Search Committee belongs to the state. The proceedings before the top court were initiated by the Chancellor challenging a July 14 Kerala high court decision setting aside his order appointing V-Cs to the two universities. The high court order came after the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government objected to the November 27, 2024 notification on V-C appointments issued by the governor. The legal tussle between governor and state government over appointment of V-Cs is not limited only to Kerala. The top court is also considering a petition filed by the West Bengal government challenging the inaction of the Raj Bhavan to clear names of V-Cs for 36 universities in the eastern state. After the court intervened and appointed former CJI UU Lalit to head a panel for selecting V-Cs for each university, 34 appointments have come through.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Civic bodies are only following the meat ban imposed by Congress in 1988: CM
MUMBAI: Amid a backlash by Opposition leaders, as well as deputy chief minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar, over the ban on selling meat on Independence Day imposed by several municipal corporations in the state, chief minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Wednesday that the 'directives issued by civic bodies was based on a similar order issued by the Congress government in 1988'. Nagpur: Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis congratulates chess player Divya Deshmukh on winning the FIDE Women's World Cup 2025, during a press conference, in Nagpur, Monday, July 28, 2025. (PTI Photo)(PTI07_28_2025_000493A) (PTI) On Tuesday, while Pawar opposed the ban, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had released a copy of a government resolution (GR) of 1988, which was issued when Sharad Pawar (who was with Congress at the time) was chief minister of the state. On Wednesday, Fadnavis said while BJP supports citizens' freedom of choice in food, the 'ban is not the state government's decision, but has come from the municipal corporations of some cities'. 'The civic bodies have appraised me that the ban has been in practice for years, with the first GR being issued in 1988. Everybody has the right to live life as per the constitutional provision and the government does not want to interfere with it,' said Fadnavis. BJP spokesperson Keshav Upadhye posted the GR on X, stating: 'Aaditya Thackeray (Shiv Sena-UBT) and Jitendra Awhad (NCP-SP), who have been opposing the ban, should condemn Sharad Pawar (head of NCP-SP). Awhad and Thackeray were ministers in the Uddhav Thackeray government, which continued the ban, but uttered no word against it. I however have no doubt that deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, known for his command of the administration, would very well know that this decision is not by the Mahayuti government.' The row over meat ban erupted after the Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporation (KDMC) in Thane district directed the closure of meat shops on August 15, which was followed by civic bodies of Malegaon, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Nagpur.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Defamation case: Perjury plea filed against Rahul in defamation case
In the ongoing defamation case against Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition and Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grand-nephew Satyaki Savarkar, the complainant's counsel, advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, on Wednesday said they have filed a perjury application against the Congress leader for allegedly misleading the court. The reply from Gandhi's advocate is expected on September 10. (HT FILE) Kolhatkar, who represents complainant Satyaki Savarkar and moved the application before Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Amol Shinde on Wednesday, said Gandhi's legal team had earlier been provided with all relevant documents in the case. 'We had supplied the relevant copies to Rahul Gandhi's advocate Milind Pawar. He received them and signed before the court. Yet, Gandhi through his lawyer has blatantly denied receiving any such material from us. Gandhi is misleading the court. Since he holds a constitutional post as the Leader of the Opposition, we have strictly demanded that action be initiated against him,' he said. The reply from Gandhi's advocate is expected on September 10. The defamation case, filed by Savarkar — the grand-nephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar — pertains to remarks made by Gandhi in March 2023 in London, which the complainant alleges are false. Kolhatkar also commented on the recent 'pursis' filed by Gandhi's lawyer in a Pune court, which cited a threat to Gandhi's life from followers of Savarkar. Gandhi's legal team later said the filing had been made without his consent and would be withdrawn. 'A pursis is not an application; it is merely information given to the court. No court takes cognisance of it, but it becomes part of the record. At least from our side, in the Pune court, there is no threat. Such filings are a misuse of freedom and waste the court's time,' Kolhatkar said. The case is pending before a Pune court, where Gandhi has already been granted bail.
