Bhim Army protests seeking Ambedkar statue at Gwalior HC
Bhopal: A protest was held by Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission on Wednesday over the ongoing dispute regarding the installation of Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's statue in the Gwalior High Court premises.
The organization had planned a Mahapanchayat at Phoolbagh Ground, but police stopped members at Niravali Point on the Gwalior-Morena border to prevent them from entering the city. Despite the restrictions, hundreds of supporters gathered at Niravali Point by 2:30 PM, where the Mahapanchayat was eventually conducted.
From the protest stage, national president of Bhim Army Bharat Ekta Mission, Vinay Ratan Singh, along with other leaders, declared their unwavering resolve to install Dr Ambedkar's statue in the High Court.
"Babasaheb gave this nation its Constitution, and it's our duty to honour him. Those opposing the statue must understand this. If dialogue fails, the agitation will intensify," Singh was quoted by local media.
Protesters traveling from Delhi, Agra, and Dholpur were also prevented from reaching Gwalior. Police set up checkpoints in Morena and Dholpur to stop vehicles and curb the assembling of large crowds in the city.
In anticipation of unrest, the administration deployed over 1000 police personnel along with senior officers to monitor the situation from Gwalior to the Morena border. Ambulances were also placed on standby for any emergencies.
Prior to this, the Jai Bhim organization had also staged a demonstration in support of the statue's installation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC stays new rule for FYJC quotas in minority colleges
Mumbai: Bombay HC Thursday stayed a clause in the May 6 GR that introduced reservations for SC/ST/OBC/SEBC for FYJC admissions in minority institutions in the state. "Till further orders, we direct that insofar as minority institutions are concerned for admissions to FYJC, the mandate of social reservation shall not be made applicable… Consequent steps may be taken by state govt," said Justices Makarand Karnik & Nitin Borkar. They directed the govt to file its reply in 4 weeks and posted the hearing for Aug 6. On Wednesday, the judges had asked state to consider withdrawing the clause and issue a corrigendum. Clause 11 of the GR mentions that social and parallel reservations will apply to vacancies after filling minority seats in minority institutions. However, as govt pleader Neha Bhide said Thursday there are no instructions to withdraw the clause, the HC heard the matter on merits for grant of interim reliefs. The judges heard two petitions challenging the contentious clause of the GR by which govt brought minority institutions under the purview of social reservations. The first petition was filed by Solapur's Shri APD Jain Pathashala, a trust that runs Walchand College of Arts and Science and Hirachand Nemchand College of Commerce. The second was a joint petition by south Mumbai colleges, including St Xavier's, KC, HR, Jai Hind and Maharashtra College, along with Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for the Mumbai colleges, and advocate S C Naidu, for the Solapur colleges, relied on Articles 15 (5) and 30 of the Constitution emphasising on the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutes. They also brought to HC's notice clause 18.9 of the GR that makes social reservations generally applicable to FYJC admissions in all colleges. They cited decisions — including HC's 2017 verdict in the St Xavier's College case — that minority educational institutions, both aided and unaided, are exempt from backward class reservations. In July 2018, Supreme Court upheld the HC verdict. "We are saying, insofar as minority institutions in all seats, there is no cannot be imposed by govt," argued Sathe. Govt pleader Neha Bhide countered that the May 6 GR does not interfere with the rights of minority institutions; they have the right to fill 50% of their seats. It is only when seats remain unfilled and have been surrendered, that the policy is being made applicable to these seats, she said, adding: "Social reservation is an obligation put on state for filling up seats. " The judges "prima facie" found substance in the submissions of the petitioners' advocates' and granted interim relief. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Trump's tariffs and a U.S.-India trade agreement
At the end of the day, it was not the big fight between nations, but a case brought by five small U.S. businesses that presented the biggest challenge yet, to U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Tariffs are the substance of laws and regulations formulated after highly rigorous trade negotiations. The binding of tariffs through schedules of commitments in trade agreements, offers much needed certainty and predictability to businesses trading across borders. Which is why Mr. Trump's sweeping tariffs — 10% to 135%, over 100 countries worldwide — were a stunning repudiation of the rules of trade. That it also extended to the barren Arctic marine reserves of Heard and McDonald Islands, uninhabited by humans, just highlighted the irony of a bizarre executive order. This sweeping executive action also upended the fundamental principle of separation of powers between the three branches of government — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary — which lie at the heart of any democratic constitutional framework. That such an exercise of executive authority could happen without any checks and balances in the U.S., widely regarded as among the modern world's oldest democracies with a strong constitutional framework, was another point of reckoning. Five small and mid-sized U.S. businesses, dealing with wines, plastics, bicycles, musical circuits, and fishing equipment, took on the U.S. administration, and challenged the presidential executive order at the U.S. Court of International Trade (U.S. CIT), stating that the tariffs were unlawfully harming their operations and economic viability. A closer look at 'trade deficits' The Trump administration argued that the tariffs were necessary to address the 'national emergency' created by U.S.' trade deficits with all countries worldwide. Trade deficit occurs when imports exceed exports. A 'deficit' is not necessarily bad for a country's economic health. It only demonstrates the availability of consumer wealth to purchase imported goods. In any event, the U.S. administration, bizarrely, did not account for U.S. export of services in its calculation. For example, the U.S. has cited the $44.4 billion trade deficit with India. This, however, does not consider trade in services (which includes digital services, financial services, education) and arms trade, after considering which, the Global Trade Research Initiative has estimated that the U.S. actually runs a $35 billion-$40 billion overall surplus with India. The U.S. CIT, in its judgment dated May 28, 2025, ruled that the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs exceeded any authority under law. The court cautioned against the blatant and overarching use of 'national emergency' powers by the President. It noted that the mere incantation of 'national emergency' cannot sound the 'death-knell of the Constitution', and, additionally, cannot enable the President to rewrite tariff commitments in international agreements. The strong and powerful ruling, so far, has had little practical impact, having been stayed the very next day by a U.S. appeals court. The tariffs and the threat of tariffs, therefore, continue, and so does the pressure to conclude a trade deal with the U.S. The Trump administration had in fact, argued before the U.S. CIT that the enhanced tariffs provided it leverage in trade negotiations — an argument which the CIT ruled does not in any manner mitigate its legal infirmity. More egregious U.S. executive actions are promised as part of the Trump One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) — a proposed omnibus law which would reportedly also grant the executive immunity from enforcement of judicial orders. Where India stands Where does all this really leave India? The governments of both countries have been indicating an early conclusion of a trade agreement, before the U.S. threat of the July 8 deadline. Despite ongoing negotiations, the U.S. has enhanced its existing punitive tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium imports (in force since Mr. Trump's first term), to 50% on both. Pursuant to complaints initiated at the World Trade Organization by Switzerland, Norway, China and Türkiye, WTO panels had ruled (in 2022) that the tariffs imposed during Mr. Trump's first term, do not meet the proposed justification of national security. India too had initiated a WTO dispute, but withdrew this on the basis of a 'mutually agreed solution' with the U.S. in 2023. That mutual solution clearly did not prevent Trump administration extending the new 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium to India as well. India's contemplated retaliation at the WTO has been resisted by the U.S. A purported target of the Trump administration's ire is China's rise. The argument that the U.S.-China trade impasse presents a possible strategic advantage for India, however, is made uncertain by two recent developments: the U.S. and China's truce, pausing their retaliatory tariffs against each other and working towards a negotiated solution; and, more importantly, the U.S. administration's threats to impose tariffs on Apple's products, should it manufacture in India. Mr. Trump's transactional approach also indicates that there is no guarantee that the U.S. will intervene in India's favour should there be a military standoff with China. The path ahead In any trade agreement with the U.S., therefore, a careful balancing of India's interests is paramount. Any deal would need to ensure the removal of all additional tariffs on India's exports, allay concerns about retaliatory tariffs on U.S. investments, such as that from Apple in India, and ensure that the proposed OBBB Act's 3.5% tax on remittances sent from the U.S. does not apply to remittances by Indian citizens. India should also seek assurance that there would be no retaliation against India's digital services taxes. A long-standing concern for India is also the fears and backlash against H-1B visas, used widely by tech companies for their Indian employees. It is critical for a trade deal to address the issue of visas required for services trade. It is equally important for both sides to iron out the delivery of cross-border trade in services, which includes aspects relating to data flows and their regulation. Above all, any trade agreement that India negotiates with the U.S. needs to be fully aligned with India's commitments under the WTO. The U.S. disregard for multilateral institutions, notwithstanding, WTO's multilateral set of rules is the only real safeguard in an uncertain world, and India needs to do much more to preserve its foundations, as committed during its G-20 presidency. Finally, India should have the ability to stay out of any sub-optimal deal. Mr. Trump's tariffs, while painful, are likely to have a short lifespan with the biggest challenge emerging from within the U.S. itself. R.V. Anuradha is a Partner at Clarus Law Associates, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Efforts to abolish child labour should not be merely symbolic, says Judge Amarnath
Senior Civil Judge Amarnath K.K., who is also the member-secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, said here on Thursday that efforts to abolish the scourge of child labour should be backed by real programmes and not be confined to symbolic events. He was speaking at the inauguration of 'World Day Against Child Labour', held at Maharaja's Pre-University College. The judge said that children are pushed into labour at an early age and are deprived of education. The social practice of families depending on child labour for livelihood must be completely eliminated, and is the responsibility of every citizen, he said. The government has enacted Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and this should be implemented in full measure, said Mr. Amarnath. He pointed out that there were 27 laws in the Constitution relating to child-related offences, with Sections 2, 3, and 14 playing key roles. Veena S.R., Assistant Labour Commissioner and member-secretary of the District Child Labour Project, said that parents must encourage children to prioritise learning over earning, and education must not be interrupted in early years. She said society should cultivate the habit of enrolling children in schools if they are found engaged in work. Under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, employing children below 14 years or adolescents in any form of labour is a criminal offence,' Ms. Veena said. Senior advocate N. Sundar Raj said poverty and illiteracy are the primary reasons for the increase in child labour in India. Citing various articles of the Indian Constitution and the laws that prohibit employment of children below 14 years in any hazardous occupation, Mr. Raj said under Article 21A, the government is mandated to provide free and compulsory education to children between 6 and 14 years. Underlining the increase in juvenile delinquency and POCSO cases, he said there are about 900 cases pending in district courts. Child Welfare Committee Chairperson Ravichandra and others were present. The event was organised by the district administration, District Legal Services Authority, Zilla Panchayat, Department of Women and Child Development, the police department, and NGOs.
