Maya slams oppn to Babasaheb statue in MP
Lucknow: Referring to the opposition over the installation of an Ambedkar statue at the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court by a section of lawyers,
national president
said that lawyers with a casteist mindset should know that the Bahujan Samaj, which has been oppressed for years, now wants its respect.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
She also requested the Madhya Pradesh governor, CM and high court to intervene in the matter and allow the installation of the statue.
In a series of posts on X, on Friday, the BSP chief said, "It was the high court that gave permission to install Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's statue at the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court on the demand of the lawyers there, and through the financial support provided by them.
It was on the directions of the court that the spot was chosen, and the platform and the statue were readied."
However, the installation of the statue is being opposed by a few lawyers due to their casteist thinking, said Mayawati, adding, "There was no action taken against them despite their instigating comments on social media. Those who oppose Babasaheb will have to understand that the Bahujan Samaj, which has been oppressed for years, now wants to get its respect."
The former UP CM urged the governor, CM and the HC to remove the roadblocks in the installation of the statue and to get "the creator of the Constitution, Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's statue installed respectfully and immediately in the Gwalior bench of the MP high court."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Centre cannot cite removed Section of DM Act to deny loan relief: HC
The Centre cannot take a stance that it is unable to issue a directive to waive/write off loans of persons affected by disasters of severe magnitude like the Wayanad landslides by citing a Section that had been removed from the Disaster Management (DM) Act, the Kerala High Court said on Friday. This was after the Centre cited Section 13 of the DM Act that had been removed earlier this year from the Act. Under the Section, the Centre could recommend relief regarding loan repayment to persons affected by disasters of severe magnitude. In the course of hearing a suo motu case taken by the High Court following the massive landslides in Wayanad, the court said the Centre had Article 73 of the Constitution (that defines the extent of the Union's executive power) to rely on. 'Please do not tell us that the Centre is powerless (in the wake of the removal of Section 13 from the DM Act). The Centre still retained its power to act since it did not derive power from the DM Act. Do not hide behind the removal of the legal provision to say that the Centre does not have the power to act,' the court added and granted three weeks time to the Centre to decide on the loan waiver and to respond. The Centre had on Wednesday informed the High Court that Section 13 that empowered the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend banks to waive/write off loans or grant fresh loans to persons affected by disasters of severe magnitude had been removed from the DM Act by way of an amendment. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had on Thursday written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking his intervention to restore Section 13 of the DM Act. In the letter, he said its removal would further distress the victims of natural disasters.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'No specific power for President over election': Federal judge blocks Trump's executive order on voting laws; says it oversteps presidential powers
A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's controversial executive order aimed at reshaping US election procedures, ruling that it likely violates the Constitution and infringes on states' authority over elections. US District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction against the March 25 directive, siding with a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to override state election laws. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Judge Casper wrote in her ruling. Trump's order sought to enforce several sweeping changes to federal elections, including mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, rejecting mail-in ballots not received by Election Day, and linking federal election grants to states' compliance with the new rules. The states challenging the order said it 'usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.' The Biden administration, which inherited the litigation, did not support Trump's order. However, Trump and his allies have maintained the directive is necessary to secure elections, with the White House at the time defending it as 'standing up for free, fair and honest elections.' Casper said the states had shown a 'likelihood of success' in their legal challenges and acknowledged their concerns about the administrative and financial burden the order would impose. She also noted that federal registration forms already require voters to affirm their US citizenship and that noncitizen voting is already illegal under federal law. This marks the second judicial blow to Trump's order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had earlier blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship mandate. The order was rooted in Trump's long-standing claims of voter fraud — assertions that have repeatedly been debunked by independent reviews and multiple state-led investigations. After losing the 2020 election, Trump has continued to promote baseless allegations about election integrity, including false claims about voting machines and illegal ballots. Critics argue the executive order threatens to disenfranchise voters, particularly in states like Oregon and Washington that rely heavily on mail-in voting. In a separate legal challenge, these states pointed out that the order would bar the counting of hundreds of thousands of ballots postmarked on time but received after Election Day. In Washington alone, more than 300,000 such ballots arrived late in 2024. Trump's order had found support among Republican election officials in some states, who said it could help prevent voter fraud and provide access to federal data for purging outdated voter rolls. But constitutional experts have warned that the president lacks the authority to impose such nationwide election rules — a power reserved for states, with Congress able to intervene only in federal elections. During a court hearing earlier this month, Department of Justice attorney Bridget O'Hickey argued the order aimed to create consistent standards across states and dismissed concerns about cost or feasibility as speculative. She also suggested that late-arriving ballots might be tampered with, although Judge Casper noted that such ballots already require a postmark before or on Election Day, and any received afterward with later postmarks are not counted. Friday's ruling leaves the future of Trump's order uncertain and bolsters state officials' efforts to maintain control over their own election procedures.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC seeks Karnataka govt reply over ban on Kamal Haasan's 'Thug Life'
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Karnataka government and sought its response to a petition filed by a Bengaluru resident, challenging the de facto ban on the screening of the Kamal Haasan starrer Thug Life in the state. A two-judge vacation bench of the top court, headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan, issued notice and sought a response from the Karnataka state authorities after hearing the PIL filed by Bengaluru resident M. Mahesh Reddy, through his advocate A. Velan. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought direction from the top court to appropriate authorities to ensure the safe and unimpeded screening of the movie across Karnataka. Velan on Friday argued that the State has completely capitulated to the elements calling for riots against linguistic minorities and burning of theaters. The counsel further contended before the top court that sadly, no FIR has been registered by the state authorities and no action has been initiated against such kind of elements, instead the State has joined hands with extremist elements. The plea of Reddy sought a declaration from the top court that the ban on the movie was illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. "This ban stems not from any lawful process, but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threats of arson against cinema halls, incitement to large-scale communal violence targeting linguistic minorities, and a chilling call for a repeat of past anti-Tamil riots," the plea contended.
