‘Objectionable' WhatsApp Status On Akhilesh Yadav Gets Six UP Cops Suspended
The cops were suspended within 24 hours since the receipt of complaint by the Samajwadi Party, the officials said.
A WhatsApp status having 'objectionable" comments on Samajwadi Party MP Akhilesh Yadav has resulted in the suspension of six police personnel in Uttar Pradesh's Firozabad.
The action was taken against all six constables, including the one who originally posted it and others who propagated the remarks further.
The original post was made by Constable Pradeep Thakur, who is posted in Shikohabad.
The Samajwadi Party filed an official complaint over the matter after the comments went viral on Facebook and WhatsApp, after which the police swung into action and suspended the constables within 24 hours.
As the post went viral, Samajwadi Party district unit chief, Shivraj Singh Yadav, met with the Firozabad police chief. The official ordered an investigation by the respective area in charge, Hindustan Times reported.
Within 24 hours, by Friday afternoon, area police officer Chanchal Tyagi confirmed that the allegations were true. He identified five other constables—head constable Kuldeep and constables Rahul, Amit, Arun, and Saurabh—for helping the post go viral.
Akhilesh Yadav is a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and a sitting MP from Kannauj. He is also the leader of his party in the Lok Sabha.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
3 Ex Chief Justices Support Simultaneous Polls, But Flag Issues In Bill
New Delhi: Former chief justices of India, who have conveyed their views to a parliamentary committee on the bill proposing simultaneous polls, have endorsed the constitutionality of the 'one nation, one election' concept but have raised concerns over its various aspects, including the power given to the Election Commission, and offered suggestions. Former CJI D Y Chandrachud, in his opinion submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament, has dismissed the opposition's criticism that the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and state assembly polls violates the Constitution's basic structure, saying the Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately. However, he has joined another ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the 'sweeping powers' granted to the Election Commission in the proposed constitutional amendment law 'without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion', according to the opinion submitted to the parliamentary panel. Chandrachud and another former CJI J S Kehar are scheduled to appear before the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary on July 11 so that members can interact with them over the bill's provisions and seek their views on their queries. Questioning the vast powers the bill seeks to bestow on the EC, Chandrachud said such 'unbounded authority' could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power, he added. Two former CJIs, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, had appeared before the committee in February and March, respectively. During the interaction, Gogoi agreed with the concerns of some members over the excessive power given to the EC, sources have said. Lalit had suggested that simultaneous polls should be rolled out in a staggered manner and not at one go, as he had said that cutting short the remaining terms of assemblies with substantive tenure left for the purpose of synchronising election cycles could be legally challenged. However, all three ex-CJIs have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of simultaneous polls. Chandrachud said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections will not infringe upon the voters' right to elect their representatives and that the bill ensures that electors remain continuously represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. He said, 'Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated.' He said, 'The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.' However, his opinion is not without notes of caution over some of the bill's features or the likely implications if it is to be enacted. Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller or regional parties due to the dominance of better-resourced national parties, saying it is a significant policy aspect that warrants legislative attention. He said, 'To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened.' While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, impose ceilings on the amount a candidate may spend during the election campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves, he noted. This gap in regulation weighs in the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources, he said. As the bill says that the term of a House elected after a midterm poll will be only for the remainder of the five year term, Chandrachud has said the ability of the government to take any meaningful project will be minimised if its tenure is only of a year or less as the Model Code of Conduct will come into force around six months before the next polls. Several MPs in the panel have also raised this point about the likely priorities and strength of a government elected for a short period.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Ex-CJIs endorse constitutionality of simultaneous poll but flag issues
Former chief justices of India, who have conveyed their views to a parliamentary committee on the bill proposing simultaneous polls, have endorsed the constitutionality of the one nation, one election concept but have raised concerns over its various aspects, including the power given to the Election Commission, and offered suggestions. Former CJI D Y Chandrachud, in his opinion submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament, has dismissed the opposition's criticism that the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and state assembly polls violates the Constitution's basic structure, saying the Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately. However, he has joined another ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the sweeping powers granted to the Election Commission in the proposed constitutional amendment law without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion, according to the opinion submitted to the parliamentary panel. Chandrachud and another former CJI J S Kehar are scheduled to appear before the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary on July 11 so that members can interact with them over the bill's provisions and seek their views on their queries. Questioning the vast powers the bill seeks to bestow on the EC, Chandrachud said such unbounded authority could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power, he added. Two former CJIs, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, had appeared before the committee in February and March, respectively. During the interaction, Gogoi agreed with the concerns of some members over the excessive power given to the EC, sources have said. Lalit had suggested that simultaneous polls should be rolled out in a staggered manner and not at one go, as he had said that cutting short the remaining terms of assemblies with substantive tenure left for the purpose of synchronising election cycles could be legally challenged. However, all three ex-CJIs have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of simultaneous polls. Chandrachud said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections will not infringe upon the voters' right to elect their representatives and that the bill ensures that electors remain continuously represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. He said, Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated. He said, The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature. However, his opinion is not without notes of caution over some of the bill's features or the likely implications if it is to be enacted. Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller or regional parties due to the dominance of better-resourced national parties, saying it is a significant policy aspect that warrants legislative attention. He said, To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened. While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, impose ceilings on the amount a candidate may spend during the election campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves, he noted. This gap in regulation weighs in the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources, he said. As the bill says that the term of a House elected after a midterm poll will be only for the remainder of the five year term, Chandrachud has said the ability of the government to take any meaningful project will be minimised if its tenure is only of a year or less as the Model Code of Conduct will come into force around six months before the next polls. Several MPs in the panel have also raised this point about the likely priorities and strength of a government elected for a short period.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
More gang violence in Punjab: 9 days after killing of gangster's mother & aide, man shot dead in Amritsar
Amritsar: Nine days after jailed gangster Jaggu Bhagwanpuria's mother and cousin were shot dead in Batala, another killing was carried out on Saturday to avenge the May 26 killing of Bambiha gang member Gora Bariar, adding yet another fatality in a brutal gang war that has ravaged Punjab. This time, assailants shot dead Jugraj Singh 'Tota' (28) in Amritsar's Channenakae village. According to CCTV footage, three unidentified youths arrived on a motorcycle and opened fire on Jugraj at close range, killing him on the spot. The attack was carried out in a public place and in broad daylight. Earlier, it was rumoured that the deceased was the brother of Jagroop Singh alias 'Roopa', who is alleged to be behind the killing of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala. However, police later denied this, saying the rumours were spread due to the false identification of the victim. Amritsar senior superintendent of police (rural) Maninder Singh said an FIR had been registered at Mehta police station. A post was later uploaded on a Facebook ID named after deceased gangster Gopi Ghanshyampur, who belonged to the Bambiha gang, claiming responsibility for the murder. "The killing of Jugraj Singh alias Tota from Channanke village has been carried out by me—Doni Bal, Mohabbat Randhawa, and Kaushal Chaudhary, we take responsibility for it," it read. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Providers are furious: Internet access without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo The post claimed that Jugraj Singh, on the instructions of one Jaggu Khoti, spied on Bariar to get him killed. "The rest who are barking should also be ready. We are watching everyone. Wait and watch," read the post. The SSP said police had begun an investigation and were close to solving the case.
