
Maya attacks Congress, BJP on quota, caste issues
She emphasised that the BSP is the only party that truly represents the interests of SC, ST, and OBC communities, and has consistently worked for their welfare and empowerment. She urged the SC, ST, and OBC communities to be cautious of the Congress and BJP's tactics and not be swayed by their promises.
Mayawati further stated that the Congress's track record on reservation and caste-based issues is disappointing, and the party's recent statements on these issues are nothing but 'crocodile tears'. She also said the party had failed to implement the Mandal Commission report and provide adequate representation to OBCs in government jobs and institutions.
The BSP chief also hit out at the BJP for its alleged 'anti-reservation' mentality. She emphasised that both parties have consistently shown disregard for the Constitution and the rights of marginalised communities.
She criticised both the BJP and Congress for their stance on caste-based census, accusing them of being opportunistic and attempting to position themselves as champions of OBCs despite their track record of oppression and exclusion.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Pahalgam-Operation Sindoor debate: Opposition slams Amit Shah for 'security lapses'
The Opposition on Monday held Union Home Minister Amit Shah accountable for the security lapses that led to the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam. During a special Lok Sabha debate on the Pahalgam strikes and Operation Sindoor, Congress Deputy Leader Gaurav Gogoi demanded answers from the government on critical national security concerns and questioned the silence surrounding key details. Gogoi called on the government to reveal how many Indian fighter jets were downed during Operation Sindoor, stating, "Each jet costs crores of rupees. The nation deserves to know. Our soldiers are being misled, and the truth must come out. The Defence Minister must clarify." Citing US President Donald Trump's repeated claims that he leveraged trade pressure to broker peace between India and Pakistan, Gogoi asked, "Before whom did Prime Minister Modi surrender? Trump has said it 26 times, we cannot ignore that." He also slammed the government's narrative of military success, questioning the repeated declarations that India "entered and destroyed terror infrastructure" after the Uri and Pulwama attacks. "Now again, after Pahalgam, similar statements are being made. If Operation Sindoor is still incomplete and Pakistan remains a threat, then how is this being projected as a success?" he asked.


Hans India
25 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order pausing new OBC list in Bengal
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order that had paused the publication of the new Other Backward Class (OBC) list in West Bengal. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai termed the impugned Calcutta High Court order both "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous'. The Bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, disagreed with the Calcutta HC's view that the West Bengal government ought to have taken the state Assembly's approval before introducing the new OBC list. 'How can the Calcutta High Court pass a stay like this? Reservation is part of the Executive functions. This is the settled law right from the Indira Sawhney (judgment) that the Executive can do it. Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary,' remarked the apex court. After parties urged the top court to decide the matter itself, the CJI Gavai-led Bench issued a notice on the West Bengal government's Special Leave Petition and listed the case for hearing after two weeks. 'Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be a stay to the impugned order (of the Calcutta HC),' the Supreme Court said. In an interim order passed on June 17, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had asked the West Bengal government not to publish the final notification for the new OBC list till July 31 this year. A Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha prima facie opined that the previous four to five notifications issued by the West Bengal government on the fresh survey to prepare the fresh OBC list were in violation of the apex court orders. The fresh OBC list was supposed to include 140 communities, and the interim stay was perceived as a major blow to the Mamata Banerjee-led state government. In its plea filed before the apex court, the state government has argued that if the interim stay imposed by the Calcutta High Court on issuing the final notification for the fresh OBC list prevails till July 31, the process for recruitments under this category, as directed by the apex court earlier, would be stalled. Earlier in May 2024, the Calcutta High Court had cancelled all the OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, which ideally meant that all such certificates issued during the current Trinamool Congress regime in the state since 2011 stood cancelled. The West Bengal government had moved the Supreme Court against this, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state. Claiming that the fresh survey process was a blatant example of appeasement politics, a petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the survey. The plea accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court last year. In an interim order passed on June 17, the Justice Chakraborty-headed Bench issued a stay on the issuance of the final notification for a revised OBC list in West Bengal till July 31.


Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.