Teargas, water cannons and injured leaders as BJD hits the streets over Odisha student's death
Tension escalated when the police blocked BJD workers, who were marching towards the Lok Seva Bhawan, the highest seat of power in the state, after breaching security barricades.
Several senior BJD leaders, including former ministers Pranab Prakash Das, Pritiranjan Gharei and Rajya Sabha member Sulata Deo, sustained injuries as police fired tear gas shells and used water cannons to disperse the protesters. BJD sources said the injured are currently being treated at various hospitals.
BJD leaders alleged the college student, who had flagged the issue with the institution and the police, could have been saved had the government intervened in the matter when she tried to reach out to the party's leadership, including Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi and the state's higher education minister Suryabanshi Suraj.
'It's just the beginning of the protest in the state capital. We want to warn the government that it will be intensified and spread across the state. They cannot silence our voice by using police force. We will continue to protest against the BJP government until they order a judicial probe and the education minister and chief minister resign,' senior BJD leader Sanjay Dasburma said.
Senior BJD leader Arun Kumar Sahoo said the protest reflected the anger of the people against the state government, which has failed to protect women.
Before the protest, police had made elaborate security arrangements by erecting barricades on routes leading to Lok Seva Bhawan. Officials said several hundred BJD leaders and workers were detained for violating 'prohibitory orders'.
The BJD has also been observing an eight-hour bandh from 6 am till 2 pm in the Balasore district.
While traffic came to a standstill on major routes, including the Chennai-Howrah NH-16 in Balasore, commercial establishments, major markets, and educational institutes remained closed. Railway services have also been affected due to the shutdown, with BJD workers seen protesting on the tracks in several places.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP slams Chidambaram over ‘homegrown terrorists' remark on Pahalgam attack
New Delhi: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram's remark suggesting that the terrorists involved in Pahalgam terror attack may have been "homegrown" rather than from Pakistan has sparked intense political backlash, with BJP leaders accusing the Congress of shielding terror sponsors and disrespecting national security concerns. Union Minister Anurag Thakur reacted sharply, stating: 'It is clearly visible that whenever India faced a terrorist attack, Congress never spoke against Pakistan. Take the 26/11 attack, for example, Congress did nothing and failed to give a strong response.' BJP MP CP Joshi questioned the Congress party's past actions saying, 'Before 2014, the country witnessed several terrorist attacks. Did you ever try to eliminate those terrorists or the masterminds behind the camps?' Chidambaram questioned government's immediate attribution of the attack to Pakistan, saying, 'What if they were homegrown terrorists? Why have you assumed they came from Pakistan? Where is the evidence? Has the NIA identified them? Where did they come from? Has the NIA revealed anything? Perhaps the terrorists were created here. The government is also hiding the extent of damage India suffered.' BJP MP Arun Govil, best known for portraying Lord Ram on screen, added: 'There can be no bigger lie in this world than what Chidambaram has said.' Former Maharashtra Minister and BJP leader Raj Purohit took it a step further: 'If they weren't Pakistanis, maybe they were Congressmen. Chidambaram has been the Home and Finance Minister, he knows things common people don't.' Even the Opposition appeared to distance itself from the remark. NCP (SP faction) leader Amar Sharadrao Kale said, 'I haven't heard the full statement, but the entire world knows who is behind these attacks. Pakistan's role is clear. We must respond in their own language.' Chidambaram's comments come ahead of a crucial Parliament debate on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
Congress MP Maintains Strategic Silence Amid Parliamentary Debate On Military Operation
Congress parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor employed deliberate silence as his response strategy Monday, repeatedly invoking "maun vrat" (vow of silence) when journalists questioned his participation in the forthcoming Operation Sindoor parliamentary discussion. His cryptic response upon arriving at Parliament has intensified speculation regarding his position on the contentious military operation. The Thiruvananthapuram representative's calculated avoidance of media queries occurred as political circles eagerly anticipated the opposition party's approach during the crucial debate. Rather than providing substantive commentary, Tharoor consistently referenced the concept of voluntary silence, effectively sidestepping all inquiries about his involvement in the proceedings. Internal party sources have indicated that Tharoor will likely abstain from the parliamentary discussion entirely. According to established procedures, members of Parliament must formally submit speaking requests to the Congress Parliamentary Party office, a step Tharoor has reportedly not undertaken. Party insiders suggest this omission reflects his reluctance to participate in the debate framework. The situation has deeper roots in Tharoor's ideological divergence from his party's official position. Sources within the party hierarchy revealed that both the Leader of Opposition's office and the deputy leadership approached Tharoor to contribute to the Operation Sindoor discussion. However, he declined these overtures, explicitly stating his inability to align with the party's critical assessment of the government's military response. Tharoor reportedly maintained his consistent position that Operation Sindoor represented a successful governmental action, expressing his intention to continue supporting this evaluation regardless of party expectations. He allegedly informed party leadership that any public statements would remain consistent with his previously articulated views on the matter. When party officials clarified expectations that speakers must adhere to the Congress party's critical stance toward the government, Tharoor chose complete withdrawal from the debate rather than compromise his stated principles. He characterized this decision as maintaining ideological integrity despite organizational pressure. The Congress party has finalized its speaker lineup with Gaurav Gogoi designated to initiate Monday's discussion, followed by contributions from Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Deependra Hooda, Praneeti Shinde, Saptagiri Ulaka, and Bijendra Ola. Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi is scheduled to deliver his remarks during Tuesday's session. Tharoor's conspicuous absence from the speaker roster reflects his increasingly strained relationship with party leadership over recent months. The tension stems from his participation in a government-organized international delegation addressing the India-Pakistan conflict, an action perceived as contradicting established Congress positions. His public endorsement of governmental policies and support for the temporary cessation of hostilities created significant friction with party colleagues who maintain critical perspectives toward the administration's approach. This ideological disagreement has positioned Tharoor at odds with mainstream party sentiment. The parliamentary discussion represents the culmination of negotiations between government and opposition parties, resulting in an agreed 16-hour debate format spanning both legislative chambers. The focus centers on governmental responses to the April 22 Pahalgam terror incident, which resulted in 26 civilian fatalities and numerous injuries. Opposition leadership, particularly Rahul Gandhi and allied party leaders, has consistently challenged the administration over alleged intelligence deficiencies surrounding the attack. They have also questioned claims by US President Donald Trump regarding American mediation efforts between India and Pakistan, assertions that the Indian government has categorically rejected. The broader political context encompasses ongoing tensions regarding national security policies, diplomatic strategies, and the appropriate governmental response to cross-border terrorism. Tharoor's position represents a significant departure from traditional opposition unity, highlighting internal disagreements within the Congress party regarding foreign policy and security matters. This development underscores the complex dynamics within opposition politics, where individual conscience and party discipline intersect with national security considerations and public accountability measures.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
High Court Judge Seeks Anonymous Status In Supreme Court Challenge Against Removal Recommendation
In an unprecedented judicial development, Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under concealed identity, challenging the conclusions of an investigative committee that advised his dismissal from the judiciary. The case appears on Monday's Supreme Court docket as "XXX vs The Union of India," with the placeholder representing Justice Varma's concealed identity. The anonymity request represents an unusual legal strategy, as such identity protection is typically reserved for sexual assault survivors, rape victims, and cases involving minors or juveniles. Justice Varma has specifically requested the apex court's permission to maintain confidentiality regarding his identity throughout the proceedings. The controversy stems from a significant cash discovery at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14. The judge was absent from the premises when the blaze occurred, leading to the unexpected revelation of substantial currency holdings within his quarters. Subsequently, a Supreme Court-constituted internal investigation committee determined there was "adequate evidence" supporting the allegations against the judicial officer. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members maintained direct oversight of the location where the monetary cache was discovered. Following these findings, Justice Varma was administratively transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On July 18, he formally approached the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the internal inquiry report and the former Chief Justice of India's dismissal recommendation. In his legal arguments, Justice Varma contends that revealing his identity would result in "irreversible damage and harm" should his application be rejected. He emphasizes that as an active High Court judge, the internal investigation process was structured to maintain strict confidentiality protocols. The petitioner argues that public disclosure of his identity at this juncture would significantly compromise his professional dignity and personal reputation, particularly since the allegations remain unsubstantiated through formal legal proceedings. He maintains that premature exposure could prejudice any future deliberations regarding his case. Justice Varma has specifically cited previous unauthorized media disclosures of confidential inquiry documents, claiming these leaks resulted in "misleading and prejudicial reporting" against him. He argues that such unauthorized revelations have already damaged his standing within the legal community and public perception. Currently facing potential impeachment proceedings in Parliament, Justice Varma's petition challenges both the procedural integrity and substantive conclusions of the internal investigation. He alleges the inquiry process contained fundamental procedural deficiencies and relied exclusively on "speculative questions rather than formal complaints." The case represents a unique intersection of judicial accountability mechanisms and individual privacy rights within India's legal system. The Supreme Court's handling of this anonymity request could establish important precedents for future cases involving judicial officers under investigation. The petition seeks comprehensive relief including the complete dismissal of the inquiry report and the withdrawal of removal recommendations made by judicial authorities. Justice Varma's legal team argues that the investigation failed to meet established procedural standards required for such serious allegations against sitting judges. This development occurs amid broader discussions regarding transparency and accountability within India's higher judiciary, highlighting the delicate balance between public scrutiny and individual rights within the legal profession.
