Uttar Pradesh BJP faces heat over allegation that ‘MLA struck official'
Allegations on social media about Banda MLA Prakash Dwivedi slapping a Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for not releasing seized trucks created an uproar on Tuesday (June 25, 2025). The Opposition called the situation in Uttar Pradesh 'harmful' and 'dangerous' owing to the behaviour of ruling party legislators and sought the strictest action.
The MLA admitted scolding the officer for alleged misconduct. This is the second incident in less than a week in which a BJP MLA has been accused of misconduct in U.P.
'What is happening in UP under BJP rule? The BJP leader versus officer is happening; these situations are harmful and dangerous for the state. From Saharanpur to Sonbhadra-Mirzapur, illegal mining is underway in the entire state,' said Samajwadi Party (SP) president Akhilesh Yadav on X, tagging a video link in which a claim was made about the MLA beating the SDM.
A mob allegedly attacked SDM Amit Shukla in Banda district on the night of June 22, after the official seized two sand-laden trucks over suspicions they were being used in illegal mining. In the FIR filed by the SDM's official driver, Kamta Prasad Mishra, after two overloaded trucks were impounded, the SDM's vehicle was intercepted and the official abused by 25-30 miscreants.
MLA denies assault
The police lodged an FIR under Sections 121 (1) (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty), 351 (3) (criminal intimidation), and 109 (attempt to murder) of the BNS. The MLA was not named in the FIR. The issue led to an uproar, with the word spreading that Banda Sadar BJP MLA Prakash Dwivedi had slapped the SDM after asking him to release the trucks.
The Hindu tried to reach out to the MLA, whose staff said that Mr. Dwivedi was busy, adding all the allegations were incorrect. Speaking to local media, the MLA called the allegation a deliberate attempt to malign his image. 'I did scold the SDM over what I believed were unjustified vehicle seizures, but there was no physical assault.'
Earlier on June 19, the BJP MLA from Jhansi's Babina assembly segment, Rajeev Singh Parichha, created a controversy after a passenger on the Vande Bharat Express was allegedly attacked by his associates. The BJP was forced to issue a show-cause notice to the MLA amid the public outcry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
38 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP accuses Cong of insulting Rajiv Gandhi by delaying local body polls
Hyderabad: BJP Telangana State Secretary Dr S Prakash Reddy has asserted that the Congress government is 'insulting former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi' by failing to conduct local body elections. Following a six-hour Congress cabinet meeting, he stated there remains 'no clarity' on local body elections in the state, exposing the government's alleged 'incompetence' in managing local governance. During a media address on Tuesday, Dr Reddy highlighted that the State High Court is currently hearing the matter. While the state government has requested a one-month extension for holding elections, the Election Commission has suggested a two-month extension. However, Dr Reddy claimed that public trust in these timelines has diminished. He noted that the terms of Sarpanches ended in February 2024, with Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (ZPTCs), Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs), and Mandal Parishad Presidents (MPPs) expiring in June, and municipal elections due in August. With more than 150 municipalities and over 12,000 Gram Panchayats lacking governing bodies, Dr Reddy described this as a clear indication of the Congress government's 'administrative failure.' Dr Reddy drew a sharp contrast, stating that 'even under Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir conducted local elections,' whereas Telangana's situation has reportedly worsened under the Revanth Reddy government, which he accused of postponing elections akin to previous administrations. Despite constitutional provisions established by the 73rd Amendment during former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's tenure, Dr Reddy alleged that the Congress government continues to delay local elections. The BJP, he stated, is urging strict adherence to the Constitution, emphasising that local elections should not be delayed. Additionally, they are demanding that the commitment to 42 per cent reservation for Backward Classes (BC) be honoured before any local elections take place. The BJP also accuses the Congress government of neglecting this critical issue.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Anil Masih fiasco fallout: Show of hands, not secret ballot, in next Chandigarh mayoral polls
The 2026 Chandigarh mayoral elections will be conducted through a show of hands instead of secret ballots — a fallout of the 2024 controversy in which then-presiding officer Anil Masih was caught on camera tampering with votes. In the 2024 mayoral elections, then presiding officer Anil Masih, a nominated councillor in the MC, was caught on camera invalidating eight votes cast in favour of AAP-Congress alliance candidate Kuldeep Kumar Dhalor, in an apparent attempt to secure victory for the BJP's Manoj Sonkar. (HT File) Following persistent demands from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress for greater transparency in the electoral process, UT administrator Gulab Chand Kataria on Tuesday approved an amendment to Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996. With this amendment, the mayor, senior deputy mayor, and deputy Mayor will now be elected through a show of hands instead of the earlier secret-ballot method. Kataria said the new system will bring greater transparency in the election process and strengthen people's trust in democratic processes. The proposal had been sent to the administrator after it was cleared in the Chandigarh MC House. Since the establishment of the Chandigarh MC in 1996, mayoral elections have been conducted through secret ballots. In the 2024 mayoral elections, then presiding officer Anil Masih, a nominated councillor in the MC, was caught on camera invalidating eight votes cast in favour of AAP-Congress alliance candidate Kuldeep Kumar Dhalor, in an apparent attempt to secure victory for the BJP's Manoj Sonkar. The Supreme Court (SC) later ruled that the vote tampering was deliberate and overturned the results, declaring Dhalor the winner. This decision gave Chandigarh its first non-BJP, non-Congress mayor. The incident sparked nationwide outrage and damaged the BJP's credibility, as reflected in the subsequent Lok Sabha election results. During the MC House meeting in October 2024, AAP, led by former mayor Dhalor, along with its INDIA bloc alliance partner Congress, passed a resolution proposing that future elections be conducted through a show of hands. In January 2025, former mayor Dhalor filed a petition before the SC to replace the secret ballot system with open voting to ensure fairness. However, the SC refused to intervene and left the decision to the administration. The shift to an open voting system will benefit the party with the highest number of councillors, as any councillor wishing to vote for an opposition candidate will have to do so publicly. This will enable political parties to take disciplinary action against councillors who defy party lines. In the 2025 elections, the BJP secured the mayoral position through cross-voting, gaining three opposition votes from AAP and Congress councillors. However, with the new system, such manipulations will become difficult, as councillors will be required to publicly raise their hands to cast votes—similar to how resolutions on development projects and other issues are passed in the House. The mayoral elections are conducted by the deputy commissioner's office. Chandigarh currently lacks an anti-defection law, which allows councillors to switch parties before elections. As a result, party-switching among councillors has been a recurring issue before every election.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Democracy in Retreat: Comparing the Emergency with Modi's India
Today, June 25, 2025, marks the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi – an unprecedented democratic rupture in India's republican history. Spanning from 1975 to 1977, the Emergency did not merely suspend democratic norms and undermine constitutionalism; it revealed, with brutal clarity, an authoritarian impulse cloaked in constitutional legality. While the immediate trigger was the invalidation of Gandhi's 1971 election by the Allahabad high court on charges of electoral malpractice, the broader political context – rising economic distress and growing social unrest in the late 1960s and early 1970s – set the stage. Amid mounting protests and global condemnation, Gandhi eventually called for elections in 1977. She was decisively defeated, and India formally restored its democratic order. Yet, the political fabric of the nation had been irrevocably altered. Half a century later, India confronts a different kind of crisis – what scholars and commentators increasingly describe as an 'undeclared emergency'. Unlike 1975, this moment is not marked by the formal suspension of rights, but by the slow, methodical erosion of constitutional values under the guise of electoral legitimacy. Democratic backsliding in contemporary India According to the 2025 reports by V-Dem and Freedom House, India is now classified as an 'electoral autocracy' and 'partly free', respectively. These sobering designations track the systematic democratic backsliding since 2014, coinciding with the rise of Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Among the chief causes: persecution of minorities, institutional subversion, weaponisation of legal tools against dissent, and an overt push toward Hindu nationalist ideology. These developments align with recent scholarly assessments that India is undergoing a constitutional crisis of unprecedented scale – less visible than 1975, but no less perilous. Also read: Emergency: Declared Versus Undeclared One of the most disturbing outcomes is the deepening communalisation of politics, often reflected in genocidal rhetoric targeting Muslims. Gregory Stanton, founder of Genocide Watch, has even warned that 'early signs of genocide are already visible in India'. A comparative lens: 1975 and post-2014 The closest historical analogy remains the 1975 Emergency, when Gandhi declared emergency rule to protect her political survival. Through constitutional mechanisms, she suspended civil liberties, censored the press, and compromised institutional independence. Historian Gyan Prakash famously called it the 'lawful suspension of law'. Yet, it was an overt crisis – transparent in its declaration. In 1977, the Indian electorate responded decisively, voting Gandhi out of office and reaffirming the democratic spirit. In contrast, the Modi era is more insidious. No formal declaration of Emergency has been made. Instead, institutions are being systematically hollowed out through autocratic legalism and bureaucratic capture. Judicial independence has weakened, dissent is criminalised, and laws are increasingly deployed as instruments of authoritarian control. What emerges is a parallel constitutional order – legally structured but ethically void. Carl Schmitt's idea that "sovereign is he who decides on the exception" becomes alarmingly relevant. If Gandhi's Emergency was an extraordinary exception, Modi's governance normalises the exception itself – transforming it into a routine tool of rule. As philosopher Giorgio Agamben observes, the 'state of exception' collapses the boundary between legality and illegality. In today's India, that collapse feels almost complete. Undermining the constitutional promise Legal scholar Arvind Narrain argues that Modi's India represents 'a kind of State going beyond authoritarianism'. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot has warned of a creeping Hindu rashtra – where religious majoritarianism is intertwined with authoritarian governance. This vision is in direct contradiction to the constitutional ideals of pluralism, secularism and fraternity. Reflecting on this decline, political theorist Pratap Bhanu Mehta – who once described India's 1950 democratic leap as 'a leap of faith for which there was no precedent in human history' – forces us to confront key questions: Why do democratic breakdowns recur in India? What sustains them? And what constitutional future do they portend? From 1950 to the present: A democratic experiment under stress India's democratic experiment was, from its inception, radically ambitious. At independence, global observers doubted its feasibility given its enormous diversity, social hierarchies and colonial inheritance. Yet, the Constitution granted universal adult franchise and reimagined colonial subjects as rights-bearing citizens. Still, as B.R. Ambedkar warned, Indian democracy was built on undemocratic foundations. He called for the cultivation of constitutional morality, which remains elusive to this day. Over time, the post-independence dominance of the Congress system gave way to regional fragmentation, paving the way for populism and patronage – elements inimical to liberal democracy. The populist fervour of the early 1970s culminated in the Emergency. Today, similar populist impulses – now turbocharged by digital platforms and mass communication – are being deployed by the Modi regime. But this time, they are rooted in a deeper ideological project, with wider and more lasting consequences. Modi's India as autocratic legalism Kim Lane Scheppele's concept of 'autocratic legalism' – developed in the context of Hungary – is instructive here. It describes how democratically elected leaders use legal instruments to implement illiberal goals. This includes capturing institutions, rewriting rules and co-opting civil society under the veneer of legality. India under Modi fits this mould disturbingly well. The reading down of Article 370, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir's special status, was executed without political consensus – circumventing federal norms central to Indian constitutionalism. The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced under the pretext of campaign finance reform, has entrenched unprecedented opacity and disproportionately benefited the ruling party – while surviving years in judicial limbo, even if it is now struck down. The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) introduced religion as a criterion for citizenship for the first time in independent India. As political theorist Niraja Gopal Jayal notes, this move represents an attempt to redefine Indian citizenship along ethno-religious lines. These are only illustrative examples. The broader trend reveals a calculated strategy: remaking the Indian state through democratic means to serve undemocratic ends. The normalisation of the exception What makes the present moment especially dangerous is not just the manipulation of the Constitution, but the entrenchment of impunity. Civil liberties are routinely violated. Laws like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition are invoked against students, activists and journalists. The 2019 amendment to UAPA allows the state to designate individuals as 'terrorists' without trial. Legal scholar Nasser Hussain has shown how emergency laws, originally meant for exceptional circumstances, are now normalised as tools of everyday governance. Under Modi, this legal architecture of repression has expanded dramatically – undermining the very foundation of rule of law. India is no longer drifting toward authoritarianism. It is institutionalising it. A troubling trajectory A comparative reflection on the 1975 Emergency and the post-2014 era reveals a troubling trajectory. Gandhi's authoritarianism was personal, visible and ultimately repudiated by the people. Modi's version is structural, ideological and – most dangerously – normalised by society. This shift compels us to ask hard questions: Can democratic institutions endure without democratic values? Can a constitution survive when its spirit is steadily hollowed out? On this solemn 50th anniversary of the Emergency, the question is not whether democracy is being threatened – but whether it is being slowly undone from within. A strong and resilient democracy depends on a vigilant citizenry. The twin histories of declared and undeclared emergencies in India offer urgent lessons: democracy cannot be taken for granted. On this day, we must resolve – once again – to rescue democracy from the clutches of authoritarianism and restore it to its rightful path: rooted in constitutional values, nurtured by public accountability and sustained by collective vigilance. Md Zeeshan Ahmad is a Delhi based lawyer.
