Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 105

“If DMK Continues To Ignore Us, We Will Not Vote for Them in 2026”, VCK Cadre Lambasts DMK Minister Moorthy Over Unilaterally Deciding Assembly Candidate In Madurai

By
The Commune
-
dmk vck minister moorthy

A viral video circulating on social media has stirred controversy, allegedly exposing growing tensions between ruling DMK and its ally VCK in the Madurai region. The clip, from a 14 September protest organised by the VCK over Panchami land rights, shows a speaker unleashing a fiery attack on DMK Minister Moorthy and the Stalin-led government for failing the scheduled caste community.

The VCK member accused the DMK of treating Dalits as mere vote banks, arguing that despite years of loyalty, the party has given them “neither respect nor recognition.” He pointed out that not a single Anganwadi or ration shop job had been allotted to VCK members, despite DMK’s tall claims on social justice.

The speaker cited a glaring example, Minister Moorthy had promised ₹10 lakh compensation, a house, and a government job to the family of Muthamma. None of those promises, he claimed, were fulfilled. He further lambasted the DMK for remaining silent on honour killings, citing cases like Kavin and Udumalai Sankar, accusing Stalin and his ministers of avoiding the issue to protect their vote bank.

His ire was particularly directed at Moorthy for unilaterally announcing Venkatesan as the DMK candidate for Sholavandan constituency, even before alliance negotiations began. “Who gave him the authority?” the speaker thundered, demanding that the seat be officially allocated to the VCK.

The speech took a harsher turn when he called upon members of the Dalit communities Pallars, Chakiliyars, and Paraiyars to stop blindly chanting “long live the minister, MLA, or Thalapathi” and instead demand real representation. “If the DMK refuses to give positions or jobs, walk out and join VCK,” he declared.

The protest, held at Alanganallur Kettukadai and presided over by VCK’s Western District Secretary Chinthanai Valavan, was attended by several district and state leaders. The speaker warned that unless the DMK concedes the constituency to VCK, his party will not extend its support in the 2026 Assembly elections. He reminded the crowd that in the past, DMK had betrayed VCK by promising seats during local polls but fielding its own candidates instead.

The fiery address ended with a direct warning, “If DMK continues to ignore us and impose its own candidate, the VCK will not vote for them in 2026. Our leader Thol. Thirumavalavan will take the final call.”

The VCK member said, “Why should we be in the DMK? All the Pallans, Chakiliyans, and Paraiyans with DMK veshti’s get out. I’m telling you openly, I declare it, get out. You won’t have any respect there. You’ll keep voting for them for ages, saying “Long live the Minister,” “Long live the MLA,” “Long live our Thalapathi,” “Long live Udhayanidhi.” No welfare will come towards you. So far, we have been in their alliance. We are saying this openly, we have been in the alliance. They haven’t given a single Anganwadi job to an alliance party member, nor a single ration shop job. But this minister talks about social justice. Where are you protecting social justice? Do the Pallans, Paraiyans, and Chakiliyans not have any talent? Don’t they have skill to become DMK union secretary? Ask the DMK for a position in the union, or paste posters, or get out of the DMK or come and join the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi. Why are we just there to vote and say “Long Live” all the time?

Kavin was brutally murdered. There were many honor killings in Udumalai Sankar’s case where people fell in love. They say they are talking about eradicating caste and then they are killing people. Even now, the DMK is in an alliance, and they keep saying they will pass a law against honor killings. Chief Minister, Stalin, and the ministers won’t even talk about it. If they talk about it, people won’t vote for them.”

He continued saying, “Again the candidate for the DMK’s Sholavandan constituency is Venkatesan, and who has announced this? Minister Moorthy. We’re asking, when did you become the DMK leader? We believe that the DMK leader is Stalin, and next in line is Udhayanidhi. When did you become the leader? The DMK alliance has the VCK, two Communist parties, Congress, other Muslim League movements, and other movements. Alliance talks haven’t even happened yet. It hasn’t been announced which constituency each person will run in. But this minister Moorthy has announced that Venkatesan will be the candidate for this constituency again. In Valayapatti, where our people have been protecting the land for 20 years and protesting for land deeds, did you give land deeds to even one person? There’s no formality; all the land deeds are for the Pallar community. In the Ponginayakka Committee, a building has been maintained for 60 years. Now the new Tamil party members are encroaching and causing problems. This Venkatesan has not opened his mouth about it. But when we talk to him, he says, “We’ve spoken to the MLA,” and that he’ll do it as soon as the MLA tells him. So, you’ll take the VCK votes and act against us. This is highly condemnable. In the coming times, in the upcoming 2026 assembly election, Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam will field a candidate, Naam Tamilar will field a candidate, and similarly, the ADMK and BJP will field candidates. I’m telling you as it is, we need to tell Moorthy and the honorable Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Udhayanidhi to allocate this constituency to the VCK. If you come asking for votes after announcing your own candidate, the VCK will not vote for you. The leader, Thol. Thirumavalavan, will tell us.”

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

“You, As The leader, Should Control The Crowd, Set An Example By Telling Pregnant Women & Differently-Abled Not To Come”: Madras High Court Tells TVK Chief Vijay On Public Meetings

By
The Commune
-
tvk vijay

The Madras High Court on 18 September 2025 emphasised the need for Tamil Nadu authorities to frame clear guidelines for collecting monetary deposits from political parties intending to hold public meetings and other events, so they can be penalised in case of damage to public property. Justice N. Sathish Kumar directed Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak to submit a report by 24 September 2025 on the proposed guidelines, which should apply to all political parties and other organisations intending to conduct public events, “without any discrimination.”

The interim direction followed the submission of photographs by the APP showing damage to public property during a large gathering for the campaign of actor-turned-politician Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Tiruchi on 13 September 2025.

The photographs were presented during the hearing of a writ petition (criminal) filed by the TVK, which accused police of imposing “practically impossible and onerous conditions” whenever it sought permission for campaigns by its leader. Senior counsel V. Raghavachari told the court that the Tiruchi police had imposed as many as 23 conditions for the 13 September 2025 campaign, including barring pregnant women, elderly people, and persons with disabilities from attending the event. “How can we tell them not to come?” he asked.

The petition highlighted that the TVK is a registered political party with a core ideology of “secular social justice,” encompassing secularism, social equality, inclusive representation, linguistic harmony, democratic values, and the two-language policy. TVK’s deputy general secretary C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar filed a detailed affidavit, noting that the party’s rapid growth had drawn lakhs of supporters, particularly women, youth, and students, and had turned it into “a strong democratic force” in Tamil Nadu.

The affidavit further alleged that the rise of the TVK provoked resistance from a dominant political family, which “has continuously sought to obstruct our democratic activities,” resulting in party cadres facing difficulties in obtaining statutory permissions from police authorities despite full compliance with legal requirements.

The petition stated that general secretary ‘Bussy’ Anand (N. Anand) had submitted a representation to the Tiruchi Commissioner of Police on September 6 requesting permission to conduct a peaceful campaign at police-notified venues on 13 September 2025. Permission was only granted on 10 September 2025, with “arbitrary, onerous, and unreasonable” conditions, the petition claimed.

Despite these restrictions, Vijay’s campaign in Tiruchi was held peacefully and in strict adherence to the imposed conditions. The petition argued that police continued to apply “discriminatory and onerous” restrictions on the TVK while being more lenient with other parties. “The leaders of the ruling party as well as the other Opposition parties are conducting regular road shows, rallies, and public meetings at places of their choice without being subjected to such unreasonable conditions. In stark contrast, whenever the petitioner party applies for permission to conduct meetings in designated areas notified by the police, onerous and impractical conditions are consistently imposed,” it stated.

The petition also submitted a copy of permissions granted to another political party with more liberal conditions, highlighting the apparent bias. It requested a direction to the Director-General of Police to instruct subordinates to grant permissions for TVK campaigns between September 20 and December 20 in a “fair, uniform, and non-discriminatory manner.”

The High Court observed the need for the police to formulate uniform rules while granting permissions for public meetings. Justice N. Sathish Kumar suggested that parties could be required to deposit a fixed sum as compensation for potential damage to public property.

The court also emphasised the personal responsibility of Mr. Vijay in maintaining lawful conduct at his party events. “You, as the leader, should control the crowd,” Justice Sathish Kumar said, adding that Vijay could set an example by discouraging pregnant women and differently-abled individuals from attending large gatherings for their own safety.

Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Thilak informed the court that permission had not been denied but certain conditions were imposed to ensure law and order and presented photographs showing damage during the recent Trichy meeting. Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari argued that the conditions were impossible to comply with and were not imposed on other parties. “They have imposed conditions on the number of vehicles that should come, have said that pregnant women and differently abled people should not come. How can we tell them not to come?” he reiterated.

The court questioned whether compensation had been collected for the damage to public property, warning that it would intervene if necessary. The matter was adjourned to 24 September 2025 for further hearing.

Vijay’s campaign, which started in Trichy on 13 September 2025, will continue until 20 December 2025, covering districts across the state. Upcoming dates include Coimbatore, The Nilgiris, Tiruppur, and Erode on October 4-5, followed by Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, and Thoothukudi on 11 October 2025, and Kancheepuram, Vellore, and Ranipet on 18 October 2025.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Chief Justice Gavai Neither Retracts Nor Regrets Comments Mocking Hindu Petitioner’s Appeal To Restore Beheaded Vishnu Idol, Blames Social Media For Outrage

By
The Commune
-
cji gavai chief justice gavai hindu beheaded vishnu idol

Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on 18 September 2025 attributed the controversy over his recent remark in the Khajuraho Vishnu idol case to social media, while clarifying that he had intended no disrespect to religious sentiments.

“I respect all religions…This happened on social media,” the CJI said, indicating that the backlash was a product of online reactions rather than his intent.

The row stems from comments made by the CJI on 16 September 2025, when the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking restoration of a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Madhya Pradesh. Directing the petitioner to approach the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the CJI had insensitively remarked: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now. It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc. Sorry.”

The statement had prompted criticism from the majority Hindus, who described it as hurtful to Hindu beliefs.

During Thursday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta weighed in, observing how reactions on social media often escalate disproportionately. “We have seen this…There is Newton’s law which says every action has equal reaction, but now every action has disproportionate social media reaction, milord,” he remarked.

The petition at the centre of the dispute was filed by Rakesh Dalal, who argued that the Vishnu idol at the UNESCO-listed Khajuraho temple complex was mutilated during Mughal invasions and has remained unrestored despite decades of representations. He contended that the inaction violated devotees’ right to worship.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Rohini Court Reserves Verdict In Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s Plea Against Adani Gag Order

By
The Commune
-
Delhi Court Refuses To Urgently Hear Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s Plea Against Adani Gag Order

A Delhi court on Thursday reserved its order on an appeal filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging a gag order that restrained him from publishing allegedly defamatory stories against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from both sides at length.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Thakurta, argued that the injunction was overbroad and lacked clarity. “The urgency is that an order has been passed by Central government to intermediaries to remove all the materials,” Pais submitted.

He contended that the companies mentioned in the impugned articles were not all Adani’s. “They say my reporting is damaging India’s energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India. Court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss…The order says they (AEL) have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation,” Pais argued.

Criticising the scope of the order, he added: “A site has many articles. The judge has left it to the plaintiff to write to the intermediaries and get removed anything they find defamatory…The plaintiff has been put in the shoes of a judge.”

Pais also questioned the role of the Central government, saying it had acted despite not being a party to the proceedings.

During the hearing, the court asked Adani’s counsel to clarify jurisdiction. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing Adani, argued that the defamation was online and therefore fell under its scope. Another counsel sought an injunction until the case was decided.

However, Judge Chaudhary observed, “Till the court makes a declaration, how can the injunction be passed?” When Aggarwal said Adani had not yet filed a reply, the judge responded, “To aap reply file kare hum tab tak stay kar dete hain. Aapne to caveat file kar rakha tha. Inko to pata bhi nahi tha ki aap Rohini main suit file karoge. (You file a reply, till then we will stay the order. You have filed a caveat. They didn’t even know you would file a suit in Rohini Court).”

Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, also representing Adani Enterprises, said the Supreme Court had already given the company a clean chit. Taking the court through the order under challenge, he submitted, “The court has given a finding that the further publication and circulation may tarnish my image.”

When asked by the court to identify the defamatory material, Ahluwalia pointed to a line alleging that government norms were tweaked for Adani. The judge replied, “To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai? (What is your problem with that?).”

Ahluwalia also cited another article alleging the Modi government altered rules for the company’s benefit. At this point, the court pressed him to demonstrate how such reports affected Adani’s share price.

“Yesterday, they started with saying that the Central government is in our pocket,” Ahluwalia said. The judge interjected, “Aap bhi kisi ko pocket main hoge. Bolta rahe…Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai. (You are also in someone’s pocket. Let them say… people will say things).”

Ahluwalia further argued: “Is article ki language…they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don’t publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn’t stop here. Time and again, there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists…They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down…My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them.”

Aggarwal also pointed out that Thakurta was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a terror case.

Responding, Pais reiterated that his reporting was based on publicly available information. “The US material was in public domain,” he said.

After hearing rejoinders, the court reserved its order.

The appeal was filed after Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court, on 6 September 2025, ordered removal of allegedly defamatory content against AEL and restrained journalists from publishing unverified material about the company.

Thakurta and other journalists challenged the order, arguing that their reports referred to Gautam Adani and the Adani Group, not AEL specifically. “It is submitted that a bare perusal of the reproduced portions of the alleged defamatory articles clearly reveals that at no place has the Plaintiff been called out, referred to, or even remotely mentioned. In each and every impugned publication, the references are confined exclusively to Mr. Gautam Adani or to the Adani Group,” the petition stated.

Thakurta’s appeal also claimed the order was “over-broad and all-encompassing” as it did not identify which specific content was defamatory.

In its defamation suit, Adani Enterprises alleged that certain journalists, activists and organisations had damaged its reputation and caused stakeholders “billions of dollars” in losses. The company accused them of aligning with “anti-India interests” and targeting its infrastructure and energy projects.

The suit cited material published on websites including paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au.

The appeal on behalf of Thakurta was filed through Advocates Apar Gupta, Indumugi C and Naman Kumar, while another appeal on behalf of journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi was filed by NG Law Chambers through Advocate Nakul Gandhi.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

BJP Leader Annamalai Slams DMK Govt Over 256 Abandoned Govt Schemes

By
The Commune
-
bjp dmk annamalai

Former Tamil Nadu BJP president K. Annamalai launched a scathing attack on the DMK regime, accusing it of abandoning the very promises it came to power with. He said the ruling party, which had been staging “daily dramas” without fulfilling even a fraction of its commitments, now stands exposed in its final year. His remarks came after reports confirmed that the DMK government has allegedly decided to scrap 256 Assembly-announced schemes across various departments.

Taking to X, Annamalai wrote, “A recent report has surfaced that the DMK government, which has been deceiving the public for the past four years by making hollow announcements for mere publicity since coming to power, has now decided to abandon 256 schemes it announced in the Assembly because they are not feasible. The true nature of the DMK government, which has not even fully implemented 10% of its election promises and has been staging a new drama every day, is now being exposed in its final year of rule. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had said, “We will do what we promised, and we will do what we didn’t.” The abandonment of these 256 announcements is proof that nothing he promised has been done. The only thing the DMK government has done in its four-and-a-half years in power without promising it is erecting his father’s statues in every town.”

His criticism comes as officials confirmed that of the 8,634 announcements made since the DMK came to power in 2021, government orders have been issued for 4,516, with work underway on 3,455 of them. A total of 381 announcements remain pending, while 256 have now been dropped as unimplementable. These decisions were reviewed in a meeting led by Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena, where departments were instructed to formally withdraw impractical proposals.

Among the scrapped projects are the Energy Department’s initiative to convert overhead cables into underground lines, the New Avadi Road–Perambur Barracks Road expansion in Chennai, and a proposed sky bridge connecting high-rises at Nandanam and Anna Salai.

Officials clarified that before issuing such announcements, departments must carefully assess whether there is at least a basic possibility of execution. Land acquisition hurdles, financial constraints, and feasibility concerns were cited as key reasons behind the cancellations.

(With inputs from Dinamalar)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

“Mosque Loudspeakers & Temple Bell Ringing Disturbs Peoples’ Sleep”, Says Ex-Supreme Court Judge Hinduphobe Rohinton Nariman Calling For Nationwide Ban On Loudspeakers & Temple Bells

By
The Commune
-
loudspeaker ban rohinton nariman temple bells ringing

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman has called for a nationwide ban on loudspeakers and bell ringing for religious purposes, arguing that such practices directly harm public health and disturb citizens’ right to peaceful living.

Speaking at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture on 1 September 2025, Justice Nariman said, “I find today every faith seems to get louder in its protestations and is making the Lord deaf. I find today that either a person is screaming in a microphone from a mosque or another is banging temple bells. All this must stop because this creates noise pollution. And if it creates noise pollution, it is covered by health primarily straight away. And every State should at the earliest according to me first ban loudspeakers and ban this kind of thing this bell ringing etc which disturbs people early morning and disturbs people’s sleep. So it is again something that is that the State must take into its hand and do it down the board so that again you can’t say that you are favoring X or favoring Y. You stop it completely. You can have loudspeakers in auditoriums like this where everybody wants to hear somebody and nothing goes out. But you can’t have loudspeakers outside which creates a nuisance.”

Placing the issue in constitutional context, Justice Nariman reminded that the Preamble begins with “We the people of India,” which, he stressed, includes all citizens. “We the people of India does not mean we the majority of the people of India or we the adult male population of India. It is we the people. We are therefore all the people of India. That is something that must never be forgotten,” he said.

He described secularism as a key step toward fraternity and explained its three strands: no state religion, no discrimination by the state on religious grounds, and equal rights for individuals to practise their faith. He pointed to Article 25, which guarantees freedom of conscience, while recalling the Supreme Court’s 1977 judgment in Reverend Stainislaus, which restricted the right to propagate religion by excluding voluntary conversion. He urged the apex court to revisit this interpretation.

Justice Nariman outlined the five constitutional limits on religious freedom; public order, morality, health, regulation of secular activities associated with religion, and social welfare or reform, and emphasised that “health squarely justified restrictions on noise pollution from religious practices.”

Turning to the idea of fraternity, which he described as the “single pivot on which everything else works,” Justice Nariman said it was crucial to uphold both the dignity of individuals and the unity and integrity of the nation. He criticised distortions in history textbooks that undermined fraternity and urged citizens to treat fundamental duties, especially the duty to promote harmony and respect for composite culture, as judicially enforceable obligations.

He illustrated the point by recalling the symbolism of the national flag, noting that the white band signifies peace and harmony among faiths, while the Ashoka Chakra represents dharma and moral law. “Every time you people see the national flag, never forget that fraternity is the first thing that stares you in the face. And remember the white portion is the portion which speaks of everybody’s harmony. And the chakra is as to how you achieve it. You achieve it by serving dharma. And you serve dharma by studying everybody else’s faith and not denigrating it,” he said.

Justice Nariman also spoke about his recent book An Ode to Fraternity, which carries forewords by the Dalai Lama and Cardinal Oswald Gracias. He highlighted how major world religions ultimately converge on moral living and the pursuit of happiness. Fanaticism, he warned, stemmed from ignorance. “Fanatics are people who neither understand their own faith nor respect others’,” he remarked.

Concluding his lecture, Justice Nariman urged citizens to uphold fraternity as a living constitutional value. “Governments may come, governments may go. Constitutional values endure. That you have to remember first and second that every time you see your national flag never forget to remind yourself of the cardinal virtue of treating every other citizen as your brother. That is at the center of the flag. That is the basis of the flag and that is the basis of the Constitution. Because in the ultimate analysis, the stakes are very high. The stake is nothing less than the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of this great country,” he said.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Dravidian Stock Film Personalities And TVK Sympathizers Suffer Meltdown Over GV Prakash Kumar’s Birthday Tribute Song For PM Modi

By
The Commune
-

GV Prakash, the popular Indian music composer and singer, has gave a meltdown to the Dravidian stock and leftist sympathisers by releasing a special Tamil birthday tribute song for Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his 75th birthday, 17 September 2025.

Taking to X, GV Prakash proudly shared the track, declaring in Tamil that as a composer and “a proud citizen of this great Indian nation,” he was honoured to present this musical offering to the Prime Minister, whom he described as “the protector of 140 crore people.” He further prayed for Modi’s long life so he could continue serving the nation.

He wrote, “As a music composer and a proud citizen of the great nation of India, I am honored to present this gift of music on behalf of the people to the guardian of 1.4 billion people, my Prime Minister @narendramodi, on his birthday. I pray to God that he may serve the people with a long life.”

The song, composed in GV Prakash’s trademark melodic style with a fusion of traditional and modern beats, stood out as a heartfelt homage to Modi’s leadership. Released alongside nationwide celebrations including greetings from global leaders, welfare scheme launches, and tributes from Bollywood stars like Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan the track marked a rare moment of open appreciation for Modi from Tamil Nadu’s film industry.

Within hours, the tribute gained momentum on social media, receiving thousands of likes and shares. Many hailed it as a bold and sincere gesture from a Tamil composer. But as expected, Dravidianists, co-musicians aligned with the left, and other ideological opponents erupted in anger, mocking and criticising Prakash simply because he dared to honour Modi, breaking their carefully curated anti-BJP narrative in Tamil Nadu.

Ironically, while the Dravidian stock had busied themselves on Modi’s birthday by trending E.V. Ramasamy Naicker’s birth anniversary to push their propaganda, GV Prakash’s tribute struck a direct blow to their narrative, proving that admiration for Modi cannot be silenced even from within Tamil Nadu’s cultural space.

Here are some of the criticisms GV Prakash faced for his tribute to Prime Minister Narendra Modi

C. S. Amudhan, film director, screenwriter, lyricist, and also the son-in-law of DMK’s loudmouth speaker Dindigul I. Leoni, couldn’t resist a sly dig at GV Prakash. He mockingly wrote, “Excellent GV. This will be your legacy”, a sarcastic swipe clearly aimed at undermining the composer’s stance.

Following suit, James Stanly, who associates himself with the DMK IT wing, dragged out an old Jallikattu-era video of GV Prakash and posted it with a smug “Hmmmmm”  insinuating that Prakash has somehow betrayed his past positions.

In the clip, GV Prakash Kumar passionately calls out the Central Government for ignoring Tamil voices, demanding the Amend PCA Act and defending Tamil traditions. His words then were sharp and emotional, “I’m… I don’t even know what to say. So, we’ll be very clear, comrades. That is, we will trend the Amend PCA Act to a different level, and we will protest at a different level. The Amend PCA Act is our first goal. So this protest will have a focus. This is our… this is our first goal. We will be very focused on that. We have to make it happen. The Central Government cannot reject us. The Central Government cannot reject us. We’re paying taxes, right? You’re taking our money, right? For what are we paying? So, you want us to pay taxes, you want our money, but you don’t want us? You don’t want the Tamils? What are you thinking in your mind? You have to answer. You have to give an answer. You have to listen to us. Jallikattu should happen. What are you thinking? You bring down a Jersey cows, and destroy our bulls and our cows? You don’t provide A2 milk and instead, spread your polluted milk, so our growing community will be ruined? We will not let that happen. We want our Jallikattu. We want our bulls, all our cows. We will be like this. The Central Government must do what we say. The law is for the people, the people are not for the law. Understand?”

Meanwhile, another Dravidian stockist, U2Brutus, known for perverted derogation of Hindu gods in his videos, took the mockery to absurd levels, posting, “U2 Brutus??? Yow, say that you’re dedicating this song on your behalf, on behalf of the Sanghis… What’s this ‘on behalf of the people’? Which people in Tamil Nadu like the BJP? Only 3%… Prakash bro… This is very wrong, bro…” exposing the routine DMK-style tactic of labeling anyone dissenting as “Sanghi.”

Even acclaimed director Selvaraghavan entered the fray with a cryptic sermon, “Never bow down before the world for anything; it will bury you in tiny abysses.” While vague, many read it as a veiled jab at GV Prakash’s song.

As usual, DMK and TVK sympathisers on social media jumped on the bandwagon resorting to name-calling, branding GV Prakash a “Sanghi,” and especially the Dravidianists mocking Brahmins with their tired, bigoted jabs. What was essentially an artistic expression has once again triggered the Dravidian ecosystem’s intolerance towards anything that doesn’t fit their narrow political narrative.

Below are some of the meltdown reactions of the Dravidianists.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The Gavai Family Dynasty: The ‘Humble’ Background Of Chief Justice BR Gavai

By
The Commune
-

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai claiming he comes from an underprivileged background and that it was possible that someone like him could become the CJI was due to Dr BR Ambedkar has gone viral on social media after his insensitive remarks during a hearing came to be known.

While CJI Gavai has publicly portrayed himself as a product of humble origins who rose through constitutional provisions, the reality presents a starkly different picture of dynastic privilege, wealth generation, and selective application of legal protections.

The Political Dynasty Behind The ‘Humble’ Chief Justice

Contrary to his viral statements about studying “in a municipal school situated in a slum area,” CJI Gavai comes from one of Maharashtra’s most influential political families. His father, Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai (1929-2015), popularly known as “Dadasaheb,” was far from an ordinary citizen struggling against discrimination.

RS Gavai’s Political Empire:

  • Founder of the Republican Party of India (Gavai) faction
  • Member of Parliament from Amravati constituency (1998)
  • Governor of three states: Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala
  • 30-year member of Maharashtra Legislative Council, serving as Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and Opposition Leader
  • Close associate of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and key figure in Maharashtra’s political landscape

The family’s political connections run deep, with CJI Gavai himself acknowledging that his father “was associated with Congress for more than 40 years” and his brother Rajendra Gavai “is still in politics and is associated with Congress”.

He said, “My father was associated… Though he was not a Congress member, but he was associated with Congress and very closely…, He was associated with Congress for more than 40 years. He had been a Member of Parliament, Member of Legislature, with support of the Congress and… And my brother is still in politics and is associated with Congress.” 

As regards his brother, in 2009, Rajendra Gavai’s faction had a pre-poll alliance with the Congress after a disagreement with Ramdas Athawale who aligned with the BJP.

This political dynasty provided the foundation for the family’s rise to prominence, contradicting Gavai’s narrative of constitutional bootstrapping.

The Mysterious Case Of Rajendra Gavai: A 740% Asset Surge

Perhaps the most explosive revelations concern CJI Gavai’s younger brother, Dr. Rajendra Ramkrishna Gavai, a politician, businessman, event organizer, and farmer whose asset declarations raise serious questions about corruption and money laundering.

Suspicious Asset Growth Pattern

According to MyNeta data analysis, Dr. Rajendra Gavai’s wealth exhibited extraordinary growth patterns that defy conventional income sources:

2009-2014 Period: Asset growth of more than 740%
2014-2019 Period: Additional 20% growth despite declared income of only ₹26 lakhs

Image Source: MyNeta

Declared Income vs. Asset Growth (2014-2019)

  • Total declared income: ₹26 lakhs over five years
  • Increase in immovable property value: ₹40 lakhs
  • Unsecured loans given: ₹62 lakhs
  • Total asset increase: ₹76 lakhs
  • Unexplained gap: ₹74 lakhs (300% of declared income)
Image Source: MyNeta

The Worli Property Transaction

The most questionable transaction involves a flat in Mumbai’s Worli area, one of the city’s most expensive neighborhoods. According to electoral affidavits:

  • Property: Flat No. 902, Purna Worli Sagar Co-op Housing Society, Worli
  • Area: 1,140 sqft total area, 950 sqft built-up area
  • Purchase Date: January 1, 2014
  • Declared Purchase Cost: ₹2,07,07,000 (over ₹2 crore)
  • Current Market Value (2019): ₹3,50,00,000 (₹3.5 crore)
  • Classification: Listed as “inherited” despite purchase date
Image Source: MyNeta

The contradiction is glaring: how can a property purchased on 1 January 2014, for over ₹2 crores be classified as “inherited”?

Agricultural Holdings And Political Connections

Dr. Rajendra Gavai owns 1.57 hectares of agricultural land in Wagholi, an area that has seen massive real estate development in recent years. The Wagholi region has been controversial, with reports of land disputes and property development irregularities.

Property Details:

  • Location: Wagholi Survey No. 422/2
  • Area: 1 hectare 57 acres
  • Purchase Date: 1982
  • Original Cost: ₹5,000
  • Current Value (2019): ₹17,27,000

The 3,440% appreciation in land value since 1982, while not unusual for prime development areas, raises questions about the timing of purchases and potential inside information about development plans.

So that was about CJI Gavai’s brother Rajendra Gavai. Now let’s move on to the next family member.

Karishma Gavai: The SC/ST Act Controversy

The most damaging revelations concern CJI Gavai’s daughter, Karishma Gavai, whose actions represent a textbook case of legal privilege abuse and potential misuse of protective legislation.

Academic and Professional Profile
Karishma Gavai’s academic record appears impressive on surface:

  • Education: LL. B (2013) from Dr. Ambedkar College, Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur – First rank
  • Post-graduation: LL.M in Criminology (2015) from Govindrao Wanjari College – First rank
  • Professional Position: Assistant Professor at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur (since November 2016)
  • NET Qualified: 2015

However, her trajectory raises questions.

Father was a sitting judge of Bombay High Court during her law school years (2013-2015)

Grandfather was Governor of multiple states and MP.

Appointment to prestigious NLU Nagpur position at age 25, shortly after her father’s elevation to Supreme Court.

The Marriage And Legal Battles

The most controversial episode involves Karishma’s brief marriage and subsequent legal actions.

Karishma Gavai allegedly married Palash Darokar, while teaching at a law college. The union was short-lived, ending in a brief and turbulent marriage.

Alleged Misuse Of SC/ST Act And Dowry Laws

In July 2021, while her father was a sitting Supreme Court judge, Karishma Gavai allegedly filed multiple serious cases against her husband and his family including cases under

  • IPC Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 323 (assault), 294 (obscenity), 504 (insult), 506 (threats), 34 (common intention)
  • SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act provisions
  • Domestic Violence Act charges

The accused were mentioned as Palash Darokar (husband), Purushottam Darokar (father-in-law), Lalita Darokar (mother-in-law), Sanjay Tongse (maternal uncle of husband) and Prashant Tongse (maternal uncle of husband).

The Broader Pattern Of SC/ST Act Misuse

This case exemplifies the exact type of SC/ST Act alleged misuse that legal experts have criticized. Notably, CJI Gavai himself has acknowledged the problem of frivolous cases under these provisions. The irony is palpable: while CJI Gavai criticizes SC/ST Act misuse, his own daughter appears to have weaponized these very provisions in a personal dispute, potentially using her father’s judicial position as leverage.

CJI Gavai’s Nephew Picked By Collegium

Questions about nepotism surfaced publicly after media reported that the Supreme Court collegium recommended a nephew of CJI Gavai, Raj Damodar Wakode (also reported as Raj Wakode), among a batch of names for elevation to the Bombay High Court in August 2025; a selection some commentators said merited public explanation to avoid perceptions of favouritism.

While nepotism concerns arise, CJI Gavai reportedly recused himself from deliberations involving his relatives. Former Justice Abhay S. Oka stressed transparency, urging disclosure of the decision-making process and suggesting amendments to the memorandum of procedure to prevent such controversies.

Financial Irregularities and Undisclosed Wealth

CJI Gavai’s Asset Portfolio

According to Supreme Court disclosures, CJI Gavai’s declared assets include the below.

Real Estate

  • Residential house in Amravati (inherited from father)
  • Apartment in Bandra, Mumbai
  • Apartment in Defence Colony, New Delhi
  • Agricultural lands in Amravati and Nagpur

Financial Assets

  • Bank balance: ₹19.63 lakhs
  • PPF: ₹6.59 lakhs
  • GPF: ₹35.86 lakhs
  • Gold ornaments: ₹5.25 lakhs
  • Spouse’s jewelry: ₹29.70 lakhs

While these declarations appear routine, they must be viewed in the context of the family’s overall wealth generation pattern and political connections.

Last Word

Justice B.R. Gavai’s controversial remarks on Hinduism have thrust him into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, putting his integrity and impartiality under the scanner. What began as outrage over his words has now widened into scrutiny of his personal and political background, with critics pointing to his family’s entrenched Ambedkarite legacy and long-standing political connections. By stepping into sensitive religious debates, he has invited a level of distrust that undermines the dignity of the Chief Justice’s office. From such a position of power, every word carries weight — and loose remarks only erode the credibility of those occupying that chair.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Can CJI Gavai Be Impeached For Incapacity?

By
The Commune
-

The judiciary of India is often called the last refuge of citizens seeking justice. It is precisely for this reason that the conduct and words of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) matter more than those of any other constitutional authority.

Unfortunately, Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has repeatedly demonstrated not only a lack of judicial restraint but also a consistent pattern of comments and orders that betray incapacity to discharge his office with the impartiality, seriousness, and dignity it demands.

His recent statement mocking Hindu devotees seeking restoration of a mutilated Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho saw calls for his impeachment. His statement represents not an isolated incident but the culmination of years of biased conduct that warrants his removal on grounds of incapacity as defined under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

The Legal Framework For Impeachment

The Constitution provides for removal of Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice, on two specific grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity”. While misbehaviour typically involves corruption or willful misconduct, incapacity encompasses a judge’s inability to perform judicial duties due to physical, mental, or intellectual limitations. More critically, incapacity includes the inability to maintain the impartiality and dignity essential to judicial office.

The impeachment process requires 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs to initiate proceedings, followed by a three-member inquiry committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, High Court Chief Justice, and distinguished jurist. Parliament must then pass the motion with a special majority in both houses.

He Claims To Be From Humble Background But That’s Not The Case

CJI Gavai’s public narrative has centered on his humble origins, claiming in viral videos that “it was only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution of India framed by him that a person like me who began his schooling in a municipal school situated in a slum area could reach this position”.

However, this narrative deliberately obscures his privileged political lineage.

His father, Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai (1929-2015), was far from a common man. Known as “Dadasaheb,” he was the founder of the Republican Party of India (Gavai), served as a Member of Parliament from Amravati, held positions in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and was Governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala. He spent 30 years in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, serving as Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and Opposition Leader.

Justice Gavai himself acknowledged this political connection, stating his father “was associated with Congress for more than 40 years” and his brother remains active in politics.

He said, “My father was associated… Though he was not a Congress member, but he was associated with Congress and very closely…, He was associated with Congress for more than 40 years. He had been a Member of Parliament, Member of Legislature, with support of the Congress and… And my brother is still in politics and is associated with Congress.”

In 2009, Rajendra Gavai’s faction had a pre-poll alliance with the Congress after a disagreement with Ramdas Athawale who aligned with the BJP.

This misrepresentation of his background to claim victimhood while occupying the highest judicial office demonstrates a fundamental lack of integrity and self-awareness that compromises his capacity to serve.

Pattern Of Anti-Hindu Bias: Evidence Of Judicial Incapacity

The Khajuraho Vishnu Idol Case: Judicial Mockery

On 16 September 2025, when petitioner Rakesh Dalal sought restoration of a seven-foot beheaded Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho’s Javari temple, CJI Gavai responded with stunning insensitivity: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are such a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu so go and pray now”. This gratuitous mockery of Hindu religious sentiment, while the matter could have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, reveals a deep-seated bias that renders him incapable of impartial judgment.

Selective Application of Religious Sensitivity

The asymmetry in Gavai’s approach becomes evident when contrasted with his handling of minority religious issues. While he readily mocks Hindu devotees, he has shown extraordinary deference to other religious communities. His participation in hearing the appeal against the Waqf Amendment Act and also staying some provisions of the Act – effectively giving voice to the Muslims while simultaneously ridiculing Hindu temple restoration pleas exposes this bias.

The Firecracker Ban Hypocrisy

CJI Gavai has consistently pushed for nationwide firecracker bans, particularly targeting Diwali celebrations, citing pollution concerns. However, he has remained conspicuously silent on environmental damage from Christmas tree cutting or mass animal slaughter during Bakrid. This selective environmental consciousness reveals religious prejudice masquerading as judicial activism.

The Ramcharitmanas Controversy

When Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya made inflammatory remarks against the Ramcharitmanas, potentially inciting book burning, CJI Gavai’s response was dismissive: “Why are you so touchy about these things?”. This casual dismissal of Hindu religious texts’ sanctity while treating criticism of other religious texts as hate speech demonstrates incapacity to apply constitutional principles equally.

Systematic Judicial Overreach And Poor Judgment

Preferential Treatment For Political Allies

Remember CJI Gavai’s father Gavai’s judicial record shows preferential treatment for Congress-aligned figures:

Teesta Setalvad: Granted urgent midnight bail hearings and regular bail despite serious charges of fabricating evidence in Gujarat riots cases.

Rahul Gandhi: Stayed conviction in Modi surname defamation case, citing “wide ramifications” while showing no such concern for other defamation convicts.

Manish Sisodia: Granted bail in Delhi excise scam citing delay, despite the gravity of charges.

Anti-Constitutional Positions On Reservation

While Gavai claims to champion Dalit rights, his push for creamy layer exclusion in SC/ST reservations contradicts constitutional provisions that treat these categories differently from OBCs. His argument that multiple generations shouldn’t benefit from reservations ignores the constitutional understanding that caste-based discrimination requires generational redressal.

Gavai approved 27% OBC reservation implementation in Chandigarh despite the fact that OBCs constitute only 22% of entire population as of 2011.

Anti-Aam Aadmi?

CJI Gavai also dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the nationwide rollout of 20% ethanol-blended petrol (E20). The petition argued that older vehicles and some BS-VI models are not designed for high ethanol blends, leading to engine damage, corrosion, reduced efficiency, and higher repair costs. It also alleged that insurance claims linked to ethanol damage were being rejected. The plea sought ethanol-free petrol availability, mandatory labelling at pumps, and disclosure of vehicle compatibility. Citing US and EU practices, it argued for consumer choice. The Court, however, upheld the government’s policy.

Failure To Maintain Judicial Dignity

The office of Chief Justice requires maintaining dignity and avoiding inflammatory statements. Gavai’s pattern of provocative remarks, from mocking deities to making inappropriate analogies demonstrates an inability to uphold the gravitas required for the position.

Poor Case Management And Arbitrary Decisions

His intervention in the stray dog case, where he personally stepped in and constituted a larger bench which modified the earlier Supreme Court orders, shows poor institutional understanding and arbitrary decision-making that undermines judicial consistency.

Constitutional Incapacity: The Core Argument

Incapacity, as interpreted by constitutional experts, includes the inability to discharge judicial duties with the required impartiality, dignity, and constitutional understanding. CJI Gavai’s conduct demonstrates several forms of incapacity:

Intellectual Incapacity: Inability to apply constitutional principles consistently across religious communities, showing fundamental misunderstanding of secular governance.

Moral Incapacity: Lack of integrity evidenced by misrepresenting his privileged background while claiming victimhood and showing bias based on religious and political considerations.

Institutional Incapacity: Failure to maintain the dignity of the office through inappropriate remarks and arbitrary interventions that undermine judicial consistency.

Constitutional Incapacity: Inability to uphold Article 14 (equality), Article 25 (religious freedom), and Article 44 (secularism) equally for all citizens, particularly the Hindu majority.

The Impeachment Imperative

CJI Gavai’s tenure has demonstrated that he serves not as an impartial constitutional guardian but as a partisan actor whose personal biases have compromised his judicial capacity. His anti-Hindu statements, preferential treatment for political allies, misrepresentation of his background, and consistent display of religious prejudice render him constitutionally incapacitated from serving as Chief Justice.

The Constitution’s framers included impeachment provisions precisely for situations where a judge’s continued tenure undermines public faith in judicial impartiality. When the highest judicial officer openly mocks the religious sentiments of the majority community while showing deference to minorities, the very foundation of constitutional secularism crumbles.

CJI Gavai’s conduct has created a constitutional crisis where Hindus cannot expect equal treatment from the apex court. His incapacity to serve all citizens equally, maintain judicial dignity, and uphold constitutional principles makes his removal not just justified but constitutionally necessary.

The time has come for Parliament to exercise its constitutional duty and initiate impeachment proceedings against CJI B.R. Gavai on grounds of incapacity, thereby restoring public faith in an impartial judiciary that serves the Constitution rather than personal prejudices.

No judge, regardless of position, should remain in office when their continued tenure threatens the very constitutional principles they are sworn to uphold. CJI Gavai’s removal would send a clear message that judicial bias has no place in India’s constitutional framework, and that the dignity of all citizens’ religious beliefs deserves equal protection under law.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

Kasaragod Minor Sex Abuse Case: 9 Including Senior Education Official, RPF Officer Arrested Among 14 Accused

By
The Commune
-
kasaragod sex abuse

Kasaragod police have uncovered a grave case of child sexual abuse, leading to the arrest of nine individuals, including a senior education official and a Railway Protection Force officer, for exploiting a 16-year-old schoolboy. The accused allegedly lured the boy through Grindr; a dating and networking application primarily used within the LGBTQ community.

In total, 16 people have been named in as many cases filed across four districts: Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode, and Ernakulam. Among those arrested is Sainudeen V.K. (52), Assistant Education Officer of Bekal sub-district, who has since been suspended from service. Another high-profile arrest is Chitraraj Eravil (48), an RPF officer and state-level football coach. The list of accused also includes Kunhahammed (55), linked to Jamaat-e-Islami and the brother of a prominent CPM leader, as well as Sukesh (30), Afsal (23), Shijith (36), Rayees (30), Ramzan (64), and Narayanan Chambrakanam (60).

Police have identified Siraj Vadakumpad (46), Youth League General Secretary of Trikaripur Panchayat, as the 10th accused. Known locally for his role in mediating disputes, he has since gone underground. “A lookout circular has been issued against him,” confirmed Kasaragod District Police Chief B.V. Vijaya Bharat Reddy.

According to investigators, the abuse began when the boy was just 14 years old and continued for two years. Ten of the 16 cases are being handled by Chandera Police Station, while the remaining have been transferred to Payyannur in Kannur, Kasaba in Kozhikode, and Elamakkara in Ernakulam.

The case surfaced after the victim’s mother noticed unusual behaviour, including strangers visiting their home and suspicious activity on his phone. She approached the police, who then involved Childline. During counselling, the boy revealed the extent of the abuse. Police confirmed that Grindr had suspended his account once it detected he was a minor.

Authorities stated that most of the accused men were married with families. They would allegedly offer cash to the boy, though he did not demand it. The victim had created a false adult profile on Grindr out of curiosity, which led him into contact with the accused.

The men now face charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code along with multiple provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, including penetrative and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, repeated assault, and using a minor for pornographic purposes.

The Kasaragod cases are currently being investigated by Station House Officers from Chandera, Cheemeni, Vellarikundu, Nileshwar, and Chittarikkal police stations.

(With inputs from Onmanorama)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

1...104105106...1,709Page 105 of 1,709
TheCommune
The Commune is a news and views portal focusing on social and political issues of the southern part of India with a focus on Tamil Nadu.
Contact us: thecommune.news@gmail.com
Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

NATIONAL NEWS

© The Commune 2025. All Rights Reserved.