A long-running dispute involving sugarcane farmers and the now-defunct Thiru Arooran Sugar Mill escalated into a flash protest on the day Chief Minister MK Stalin visited the district, with police detaining protesting farmers and confining them inside a private wedding hall.
The Thiru Arooran Sugar Mill, located in Thirumandankudi near Papanasam in Thanjavur district, had been operational for several years before shutting down permanently in 2018. According to the farmers, the mill management failed to pay approximately ₹115 crore in dues owed to sugarcane cultivators between 2015 and 2018.
Farmers have also alleged that the mill management fraudulently secured loans worth around ₹300 crore from nationalized banks in their names. As a result, many farmers now face civil liabilities and are unable to access fresh credit from banks.
Following its closure, the Thiru Arooran Sugar Mill was later acquired by another company, which is currently operating the unit.
The affected farmers have been demanding that the Tamil Nadu government clear the pending ₹115 crore dues along with interest, repay the loans allegedly taken in their names, and take over the mill to run it under direct government control. Despite submitting repeated petitions, farmers state that no action has been taken so far.
They have been engaged in a continuous agitation for nearly 1,500 days over these demands.
Amid this backdrop, Chief Minister MK Stalin arrived at Thilakar Maidan in Thanjavur to participate in a public meeting in support of candidates contesting the Thanjavur district assembly constituencies.
In protest against the Chief Minister’s visit, the agitating sugarcane farmers staged a sudden demonstration near the Thanjavur Railway Station, leading to commotion in the area.
Police, however, preemptively detained the protesting farmers, bundled them into vans, and transported them to a private wedding hall, where they were locked inside. The action further escalated tension at the scene.
Actor-turned-politician Joseph Vijay’s much-anticipated final film as an actor, Jana Nayagan, was reportedly leaked online ahead of its theatrical release, triggering widespread concern within the Tamil film industry and also a memefest on social media.
The film, which was initially slated for release on 9 January 2026, has remained in limbo for nearly three months after failing to secure clearance from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The latest development has further complicated the film’s release prospects.
In response to the leak, the film’s producers, KVN Productions, issued a strongly worded public notice warning against the circulation of pirated content.
The statement read, “We, KVN Productions, LLP, are the producers and exclusive copyright owners of the cinematograph film, Jana Nayagan. It has come to our notice that certain scenes and clips from the said film and in some cases, most of the film have been illegally accessed, copied, and circulated by unidentified persons, posing a serious threat of digital piracy.”
The production house further stated, “We hereby notify that downloading, viewing, storing, forwarding, sharing, uploading, or circulating the leaked content through platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, websites, torrents, or any other medium is a criminal offence and violates copyright laws.”
The statement threatened, “Every digital action is traceable, and we have already initiated necessary investigations, including forensic investigations, and complaints against persons involved and are actively identifying all others in the chain of circulation. Strict civil and criminal proceedings will be pursued against every offender without exception.”
Issuing a caution to the public, the producers concluded, “The public is hereby strictly advised not to engage in any manner with such leaked content. Any person found involved shall face immediate legal action at their own risk as to consequences. If you receive such content, do not open, store or forward it. Delete it immediately.”
The News Minute’s video “interview” with Palanivel Thiagarajan is a masterclass in how not to do political journalism. It is framed as a probing conversation with a powerful DMK leader, but plays out as an indulgent, almost fawning chat show that lets a senior politician glide through with zero real scrutiny. For viewers who live in Madurai’s garbage‑strewn streets and crumbling civic infrastructure, the contrast between the city’s reality and the interview’s tone is staggering.
Right from the opening, Pooja Prasanna, the interviewer for TNM signals whose side it is on. The first prompt is not about governance, Madurai’s condition, or state finances. Instead, the interviewer flatters him: “I saw a bunch of interviews before I came and I could see that you’re quite bored with repetition of questions. What question now seems like a cliché that you’re just annoyed with?” This is not a journalist interrogating power; it is a host inviting her guest to complain about other journalists. PTR happily bites, ridiculing “northern channels” for their “scripted” questions. TNM’s Pooja lets him posture as the reasonable victim of shallow media, without for a second acknowledging that they are about to do something even worse: ask easier questions than the channels he is mocking.
From there, the pattern is set. PTR launches into long monologues about how crime has fallen “in every dimension,” how the DMK government is going into this election with “relatively such a good track record and relatively low anti‑incumbency.” Any serious interviewer would interrupt here: What crime data? What about specific categories? How does this square with public perception? Where exactly is this supposedly low anti‑incumbency visible, especially in Madurai? Pooja Prasanna does none of that. There is no demand for numbers, no challenge, no local reality check. The claim is allowed to float, glossy and untested.
Instead of anchoring the conversation on hard questions of governance, the interviewer feeds PTR one ideological softball after another. “You have positioned DMK versus BJP this election…” she says, inviting him to expand on his favourite theme of DMK as the noble defender of federalism against a homogenising BJP. He obliges, waxing at length about “Hindi‑Hindutva” politics, “one nation, one X,” and the supposed philosophical purity of regional parties. At no point does TNM press him on DMK’s own centralising instincts, its track record on dissent, or the party’s long history of patronage and corruption. The interviewer’s role is reduced to nods and prompts that tee up his talking points.
The most glaring omission is Madurai itself. PTR is not just any DMK figure; he is the face of the party’s technocratic, reformist image and a key representative from a city that routinely ranks among Tamil Nadu’s dirtiest and most neglected. Yet TNM never asks: Why is Madurai still choking on filth? Why do basic services lag so badly? Why does a minister who boasts of “bringing more change in the way government functions in two years than in any 20 years” have so little to show in his own backyard? Viewers get a sweeping lecture on federalism and identity politics, but not one tough, concrete question on garbage, sewage, public health, or municipal collapse in Madurai.
Instead, Pooja keeps circling back to topics on which PTR is perfectly comfortable: electoral “technicals,” alliance arithmetic, and the supposed contradictions of the BJP and Congress. She asks, for instance, whether the DMK’s positioning “suits the narrative,” handing him an easy chance to sound strategic and reflective, rather than pinning him down on failures. Later, when discussing a celebrity‑turned‑politician, the question is framed again in flattering, abstract terms: is his entry “a good thing for democracy,” can he “channelize the angst and expectations of the youth?” These are seminar‑room prompts, not the questions a hard‑nosed reporter asks a sitting minister accountable for grim urban realities.
Even when there is an opening to bring in accountability, TNM retreats into comfortable territory. PTR boasts about how, as minister, he was given charge of “finance and pensions,” “personnel and administrative reforms,” “planning and development economics and statistics,” and claims he delivered sweeping changes in “revenue management,” “audit,” and “litigation management.” A serious interviewer would push: If all this reform is real, why does it not show up on the ground? Why do ordinary citizens still see potholes, piling garbage, and broken services? Instead, TNM lets him brag about his degrees, his work experience in the US or his family background. TNM basically functions as a PR amplifier.
The style of questioning is revealing. This is an interview filled with agreeing noises and soft, open‑ended cues designed to keep PTR talking, not corner him. When he asserts that northern media follow a “script,” TNM never turns the mirror around and asks whether DMK leaders themselves repeat scripted talking points about federalism and identity to dodge uncomfortable material questions. When he paints BJP as uniquely dangerous on identity politics, there is no follow‑up about DMK’s own history of using identity and language politics for mobilisation. The ideological echo chamber is complete: TNM and PTR speak the same language, share the same villains, and never disturb each other’s comfort.
For a platform that likes to brand itself as independent and fearless, this video is damning. It is not just that TNM fails to ask about Madurai’s condition. It is that the outlet is visibly more interested in showcasing PTR’s eloquence and ideological line than in extracting answers that matter to citizens. The entire exercise smells of access journalism, where the price of getting a powerful guest on camera is surrendering adversarial intent. The result is a friendly, meandering conversation that flatters PTR’s self‑image while ignoring the lived reality of the people he represents.
In the end, this is the core problem with TNM’s interview: it treats a senior minister, from one of Tamil Nadu’s most visibly mismanaged cities, as a pundit rather than as a public servant. It lets him lecture on the evils of Delhi, the dangers of homogenisation, and the virtues of regional parties, while Madurai’s trash heaps and broken drains never once enter the frame. That is a soft‑focus promo reel for power masquerading as accountability and viewers deserve much better.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram,Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
With the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections scheduled for April 23, election authorities have intensified surveillance across constituencies, deploying flying squads and monitoring teams round the clock to track illegal cash movement and enforce poll rules.
In a major seizure late on 9 April 2026, officials from the Anna Nagar constituency flying squad intercepted an auto-rickshaw near Arumbakkam Metro Station on 100 Feet Road around 11 pm. Upon inspection, the vehicle was found carrying five parcels containing 100 boxes. When opened, the boxes were found to contain 100 fake electronic voting machines (EVMs) made of thermocol and plastic, closely resembling real voting machines, as reported in Tamil Samayam.
Along with the fake EVMs, officials also seized 20,600 identity cards bearing the photograph and sticker labels of DMK Orathanadu candidate Vaithilingam.
The auto driver Ganeshan and Selvam, a resident of Salem who was transporting the materials, were detained for questioning. Preliminary investigation revealed that the consignment belonged to Sivaraman, owner of Coimbatore-based SRK Manpower Company. Selvam was reportedly instructed by Sivaraman to transport the parcels.
Investigators further found that the materials were allegedly intended to be sent to Pudukkottai via parcel service from Vadapalani through Koyambedu.
Following the seizure, the fake EVMs and ID cards were handed over to the Anna Nagar election office. Officials have launched a detailed probe into the incident.
With the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections approaching, several sitting MLAs of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam are facing visible public anger during campaign outreach, as voters across constituencies confront candidates over unmet promises and lack of basic amenities.
Public Anger Surfaces in Multiple Constituencies
Incidents of voter backlash have been reported from constituencies – initially seen in Manachanallur, Aravakurichi, Andipatti, and Tiruchendur, and recently seen in Tirupattur and Mudukulathur, indicating growing dissatisfaction at the grassroots level. All of them happen to be sitting MLAs.
Aravakurichi: “No Roads, No Water-Why Should We Vote?”
In Aravakurichi, DMK MLA Elango, who has been renominated, faced sharp questioning from residents during a campaign visit to Pappanayakkan Patti in Velampadi Panchayat.
Locals confronted him over lack of basic infrastructure, asking, “Have you actually done anything at all? Nothing – no roads, no access to drinking water, no basic amenities whatsoever. So, how can I possibly cast my vote for you?”
Residents further alleged that he had not visited the area regularly, stating, “You haven’t provided us with a single amenity—be it roads, streetlights, or drinking water. Yet, here you are again, showing up only to ask for our votes. You only bother to visit this side of town once every five years!”
Elango was reported to have responded that he had visited frequently, but was unable to address the questions and eventually left the spot amid continued questioning.
Andipatti: Heated Exchanges Over Civic Issues
In Andipatti, sitting MLA Maharajan also faced public anger during campaign visits to villages including Kothampatti, Maniyarampatti, and Sithai Koundanpatti.
Residents gathered in large numbers and questioned him over lack of drinking water, poor roads, and inadequate drainage facilities. They stated that repeated complaints had not resulted in any meaningful action.
The situation reportedly escalated into heated arguments, with voters expressing frustration over what they described as prolonged neglect of basic civic needs.
Manachanallur: Candidate Faces Hostility
In Manachanallur, MLA Kathiravan reportedly encountered resistance from residents, who refused to engage with him during campaigning. Locals were reported as saying that Kathiravan, “kidney thirudan” had no right to enter their area, in reference to allegations linking him to a kidney trafficking scandal.
Tiruchendur: Contest Intensifies Amid Political Stakes
In Tiruchendur, sitting MLA Anitha Radhakrishnan has been fielded again by the DMK. When he went for campaigning in Thoothukudi area, he faced protests during campaigning in Kalvilai village near Mengnanapuram. Over 50 women blocked his vehicle, questioning unfulfilled promises made over the past 25 years and alleging that no development work had been carried out. As tensions escalated, the minister’s vehicle moved away from the spot. Some women also confronted DMK supporters, with one grabbing a party functionary’s shirt and demanding answers. DMK executive Umari Shankar attempted to pacify the crowd by assuring temple reconstruction after elections, but women rejected the offer, saying they would handle it themselves.
DMK Candidates getting seruppadi from their respective constituency people
— Venkatramanan Mathiyalagan (@Venki094) April 5, 2026
Mudukulathur: Public Chase MLA Away
DMK minister and Mudukulathur candidate Raja Kannappan faced a heated protest in Ilangaakur as villagers, especially women, questioned his five-year record. Residents alleged lack of drinking water, roads, buses, streetlights, and schools, asking, “What have you done?” The minister responded, “Water will come in another 10 days. Cast one vote,” drawing backlash. As questions intensified, he said, “You have waited 75 years… can’t you wait another 10 days?” Villagers remained unconvinced, calling out unmet promises. Party workers attempted to pacify the crowd, but the confrontation escalated, forcing the minister to leave the spot.
Tirupattur: Villagers Block Minister Over Dispute
DMK minister and candidate K. R. Periyakaruppan faced a road blockade in K. Puduppatti as villagers detained his vehicle, demanding restoration of the manjuvirattu festival. Over 100 residents accused his supporters of escalating a dispute that led to the event’s halt. “You won’t get even one vote here,” a villager warned. The minister, remaining inside his car, said, “If you want justice, go to court.” His response drew anger, with villagers insisting he intervene. Tensions rose when aides tried to stop filming. Police later intervened, and the minister was escorted out.
The DMK, which is contesting 164 seats as part of a broader alliance of over 20 parties, has introduced more than 60 new and young candidates this election, including professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and engineers.
With polling scheduled for April 23, 2026, these developments indicate that on-ground dissatisfaction could play a crucial role in shaping electoral outcomes across Tamil Nadu.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram,Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
Claims made by DMK government’s ‘Sollin Selvar’ awardee Surya Xavier regarding the origin of the name Tiruchirappalli and its alleged Jain roots have triggered a debate, with historians and textual references contradicting several aspects of his narrative.
In a video clip circulating widely on social media, Surya Xavier asserts that the name “Tiruchirappalli” is derived from a Jain monk named “Chira” who established a palli (monastery), and that the town’s history reflects a transformation from a Jain centre to a Shaivite space. He further links several Tamil words such as pallikoodam and pallivasaal to Jain origins and claims that early religious and educational traditions in the region were rooted in Jain institutions.
He says, “Trichy city today Trichy is a city – Chira, a Jain monk’s name. That monk Chira lived in a palli, so Chira Munivar’s palli -Sira Palli, that’s Tiruchirappalli. This history 2000 years ago, a place where Jains lived. At that time, Trichy wasn’t a town; it was a big open field, a battlefield. But how much pride this town has, I’ll tell you. Trichy has a very big pride. Go to Uraiyur town, to the temple there. I’ve recorded all the inscriptions of that temple here. All histories are inscribed in that temple – how this place was 1000-2000 years ago. There’s an inscription in the Uraiyur temple. When you go there, there’s one more thing: an elephant bent like this, a rooster as if it is going to peck – they call it Kozhiyur. Its history, you have to go way back before that, very far back. Let that be. But it was a Jain area, Jains lived there. Because Jains lived in that area, they stayed only in hills, Jains stayed in hills, they taught dharma. Back then, no schools existed. We have four words: palli like that, one; pallivasaal like that, one; palliyarai like that, one; pallikoodam like that, one. Do you know where all these came from? All from Trichy people – they gave them. All are identities given by Trichy people. That’s the pride Trichy has. Why do I say that? Palli is the name for where Jains stay. They are Digambaras – they don’t wear cloth, sky-clad, wearing directions as clothing, so known as Digambaras. Jains, in the world, monastic renunciation in religion now Christian padres do it. Understand one thing: ‘padiri’ is also a Jain name. Tamil Nadu everywhere, 2000 years ago, there were Padiri Kudi. In Madurai, there’s a town Aritappatti. Aritappatti hill – what was its earlier name? Do you know? Padiri Kudi. Padiri is the name for Jain monks. But who first introduced monastic renunciation in religion? Jains. The place they stayed was called palli. What do they do? They try to teach and tell the people in that town – teach lessons. Because students came to that place to study, it got the name pallikoodam. Pallikoodam is different, kalvi koodam is different. ‘Education’ came after white people came. Before that, there were only pallis: Samana Palli, Bouddha Palli, Ashivagam Palli – like that, palli only. There, same place, that Jain monk’s eating and resting place, meaning Jain bedding places were there, beds all there. Now if you go, you can see at Malai Kottai – it’s called palliyarai. Pallivasaal – that also from Trichy, where else? Tomorrow morning, do you know where Tamil Nadu’s first pallivasaal is? India’s first pallivasaal is in Kodungallur, Kerala. But Tamil Nadu’s first pallivasaal – where do you know? It’s in your Trichy. From AD 729, first pallivasaal right in this Trichy city. Where do you ask? Near Main Guard Gate – here there’s a place, next to Main Guard Gate, Kallu Palli, a stone (kallu) palli exists. That’s the Kallu Palli – that’s Tamil Nadu’s first pallivasaal. That pallivasaal is not owned by Muslims, owned by Jains. Because it was owned by Jains, when Arab traders came to Uraiyur port town – traders came then. Traders ask for a place to pray. Jains allocate that palli to them. Therefore, it became Kallu Palli. So, ‘pallivasaal’ – the word pallivasaal was given to Tamil Nadu, given to Islam by Trichy’s Jains. We must say this with pride – how much history there is, look.”
சமண முனிவர் “சிரா” பள்ளி அமைத்து மக்களுக்கு கல்வியும் மருத்துவமும் வழங்கிய ஊர் “சிராப்பள்ளி”, மரியாதை நிமித்தமான ‘திரு’ சேர்ந்து “திருச்சிராப்பள்ளி” ஆனது.
According to traditional accounts and Shaivite literature, the older name of the region is “Thirisirapuram”, associated with a legend in which Lord Shiva is believed to have vanquished a demon named Thirisiran. This association is reflected in classical Tamil usage and naming conventions.
The name also appears in connection with the noted Tamil scholar Mahavidwan Meenakshisundaram Pillai, who used “Thirisirapuram” as a prefix, indicating its historical currency in Tamil literary tradition.
Further, Shaivite saint Appar refers to the deity of the hill as “Sirappalli Kundrudaiyan”, linking the place name directly to Shaivite worship rather than a Jain monastic origin.
Use of the Term “Palli”
Experts also contest the claim that the term palli is exclusively Jain in origin. Classical Tamil literature shows broader usage.
The Sangam-era text Maduraikkanchi refers to palli in the context of Brahminical religious spaces, indicating that the term was used generically for places of residence, rest, or worship across traditions, not limited to Jain institutions.
Literary and Archival Evidence
Archival and published Tamil works further reinforce the Shaivite association of the region.
However, historical and literary sources cited by scholars challenge these assertions.
Similarly, early 20th-century Tamil scholarly publications, including works from 1914, record the historical naming conventions and religious associations of the area, contradicting the claim of a singular Jain-origin narrative.
இவரும் இந்த மாதிரிப் புளுகியே காலத்தை கடத்துகிறார். அந்த ஊரின் பெயர் திரிசிரபுரம். திரிசிரன் என்ற அசுரனை சிவபெருமான் அழித்ததாகத் தொன்மம். அதனால்தான் தமிழறிஞர் மகாவித்துவான் மீனாட்சிசுந்தரம் பிள்ளையின் முன்னால் திரிசிரபுரம் என்றே குறிப்பிடப்பட்டிருக்கும். இது சிவபெருமானுக்கு உரிய… https://t.co/3K0dMBW1tSpic.twitter.com/WqCcb1803K
While historians acknowledge that Jain communities did have a presence in parts of Tamil Nadu including hill regions, the sweeping claim that Tiruchirappalli’s name and identity originate solely from a Jain monk lacks corroborative evidence from established literary and epigraphic sources.
Scholars note that multiple religious traditions coexisted in ancient Tamilakam, that place names often evolved through layers of linguistic and religious influences and singular-origin claims require strong inscriptional or archaeological backing.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram,Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
The recent observation by Justice BV Nagarathna during hearings related to the Sabarimala case, that a woman cannot be treated as “untouchable” for three days a month, raises a fundamental question: is the Court interpreting a religious practice, or redefining it through a modern constitutional lens without fully engaging with its theological context?
At the heart of the issue lies a critical distinction that the observation appears to blur: the difference between constitutional untouchability under Article 17 and ritual restrictions rooted in specific religious traditions.
Article 17 was designed to abolish caste-based discrimination – an oppressive, birth-based system that denied dignity and access to entire communities. To extend that definition to the Sabarimala practice risks conflating two entirely different frameworks: one of social exclusion, and the other of denominational religious observance.
The Sabarimala tradition, as defended by multiple stakeholders, is not a blanket prohibition on women. It is a specific, context-bound restriction tied to the nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa, who is believed to be a naishtika brahmachari (eternal celibate). This is not a universal rule across Hinduism. In fact, there are hundreds of Ayyappa temples where women of all ages are allowed entry, a point repeatedly raised in legal and public discourse.
By framing the restriction as “untouchability,” the observation implicitly attributes social stigma to what adherents argue is a theological discipline. That leap, from ritual limitation to constitutional discrimination, is precisely where the critique emerges.
The Untouchability Argument Does Not Apply Here
Article 17 of the Constitution, which prohibits untouchability, was designed to dismantle caste-based social discrimination that denied people dignity, livelihood, and basic rights in public life. Applying it to a single temple’s deity-specific restriction is a significant legal stretch. As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the very bench that Justice Nagarathna sits on: “Sabarimala concerns only a particular age group… it is a sui generis case.” By equating the deity’s traditional practice with the centuries-old social evil of untouchability, Justice Nagarathna’s analogy, however emotionally resonant, conflates two fundamentally different legal and social phenomena.
Selective Constitutionalism?
Another layer of criticism stems from the inconsistency. If courts intervene in Hindu practices on grounds of equality and dignity, the question arises: should the same standard apply uniformly across all religions?
There are also several Hindu temples where men are not permitted entry, or where entry is restricted based on gender. For instance, the Brahma Temple places restrictions tied to specific rituals, while the Kumari Amman Temple has traditions linked to the deity’s celibate form. Similarly, festivals like the Attukal Pongala are conducted exclusively by women, with men not participating in core rituals.
These examples demonstrate that gender-specific access in Hindu worship is not inherently viewed as discrimination, but as part of diverse ritual traditions tied to the nature of the deity.
Islamic religious practice explicitly prohibits menstruating women from entering a mosque, touching the Quran, performing salat, or observing fast. Catholic canon law bars women from priesthood ordination entirely. Yet the Supreme Court has not subjected these practices to the same Article 17 scrutiny it directed at Sabarimala.
The Shah Bano judgment, which upheld maintenance rights for a Muslim divorced woman, was overturned by Parliament under political pressure, and the Supreme Court did not intervene despite the discrimination.
If the same standard of “untouchability” reasoning were applied uniformly across religions, courts would need to examine far more than one Hindu temple’s practice. This raises a difficult but unavoidable question: Is constitutional morality being applied universally, or selectively?
The Article 21 vs Article 25 Conflict
This controversy also exposes a deeper constitutional tension between Article 21 and Article 25. If every religious practice is tested solely on the touchstone of individual dignity as interpreted by the Court, then a vast number of religious doctrines across faiths would come under challenge. Religious traditions, by their very nature, impose conditions, restrictions, and boundaries. If Article 21 is allowed to override Article 25 in every such instance, the guarantee of religious freedom risks becoming conditional rather than fundamental.
The Hindu Deity Has Legal Personhood and That Changes the Argument
Indian law recognises Hindu deities as juristic persons with property and legal standing. A temple’s religious practice tied to the nature of the deity is therefore not merely a human preference – it is an expression of the deity’s own juristic character as recognised in law. Saying that the deity’s tradition of celibacy makes women “untouchable” is an “outrageous conclusion” because it misattributes a spiritual vow as a social stigma.
Indu Malhotra’s Dissent Deserves More Weight
Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissenting opinion in the original 2018 judgment remains the most constitutionally careful position: “Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion.” Courts are not theologians. When they begin evaluating the rationality of centuries-old religious traditions, they open a door that cannot be selectively shut.
Women cannot be considered untouchable for three days in a month. – Supreme Court on Sabarimala.
Here, I explain why such slanderous misreadings are not only hurtful to the Hindus, they fit a pattern – of the court respecting all religions but having the guts to mock only one: pic.twitter.com/8C8tIn3gfM
The analogy of “three-day untouchability” itself is flawed because it assumes that the restriction arises from notions of impurity or stigma. The Sabarimala practice does not treat women as untouchable in any social or civil sense; it applies a narrowly defined, context-specific limitation linked to the nature of the deity. Conflating this with untouchability is distorting both constitutional meaning and religious understanding.
Justice Nagarathna’s observation, however well-intentioned, does precisely that – it uses a modern constitutional lens to pass judgment on a tradition that predates the Constitution by centuries, without applying the same lens to parallel practices in other faiths.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram,Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
DMK minister and candidate KR Periyakaruppan faced a tense road blockade protest in K. Puduppatti village of S. Pudur union after villagers surrounded and detained his vehicle, demanding restoration of their right to conduct the traditional manjuvirattu event, as reported in Polimer News.
Periyakaruppan, who is contesting from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency and seeking a fifth term after serving multiple tenures as MLA and minister, had entered the village to canvass for votes when more than a hundred residents blocked his car and prevented it from proceeding.
The protest stems from a dispute between two local groups, following which the Malayalam Sattaiya temple manjuvirattu festival was halted after the issue reached court. Villagers alleged that individuals acting in the minister’s name had escalated the conflict, leading to the suspension of the event.
Confronting the minister, one resident said, “Using your name, around ten people are dominating things here. Then why are you coming to this village asking for votes, if this is how your rule is? If you want justice, you should go and stand in court. You won’t get even one vote here, understand.”
As the situation intensified, villagers continued to question him over the issue, insisting that he intervene. However, Periyakaruppan remained inside his vehicle and did not step out to address the gathering.
Responding from inside the car, he said, “If you want justice, you should go and stand in court. Brother, they are asking that you should listen and speak for them. I myself tried speaking so much. I told them to go to court.”
He further added, “What can I do about what the court has said? You have to ask in court. Otherwise, what can Selvaraj do? If it is the court, who can interfere in court?”
Eyewitness accounts stated that while villagers protested under the scorching heat, the minister remained seated inside his vehicle, drinking water and reiterating that the matter lay within the court’s jurisdiction.
Tensions escalated further when some of the minister’s supporters reportedly attempted to prevent youths from recording the incident. This led to a backlash from villagers, who questioned them, asking, “Have you come into our village to threaten us?” before chasing them away.
Following the road blockade, police intervened and held discussions with the villagers. The situation was eventually brought under control, and Minister Periyakaruppan was escorted out of the area.
DMK candidate from the Mudukulathur Assembly constituency and Tamil Nadu minister Raja Kannappan faced a tense confrontation from villagers during a campaign visit to Ilangaakur, as residents questioned his record on basic amenities ahead of the Assembly elections.
According to visuals and local accounts, villagers particularly women surrounded the minister and raised a series of complaints, accusing him of failing to deliver essential services during his five-year tenure.
“Last time we made you win. What have you done for our village in these five years? There is no bus, no drinking water, no roads, no streetlights, no school,” residents said, leading to a heated exchange at the campaign site.
As the questioning intensified, Raja Kannappan attempted to respond, saying, “Right. It has been 75 years since Independence. You are somehow fetching water from somewhere and drinking it. Water will come in another 10 days. Right. Cast one vote.”
The remark drew further pushback from villagers, who questioned how basic amenities that were not provided over five years could be delivered within days. Observers noted that the minister appeared unable to adequately respond to the follow-up questions and moved away from the gathering.
At another point, he said, “For five years we would have done things one by one. I have done a lot for your village. Most importantly, water still has to be provided. Right. Cast one vote.”
Women in the crowd continued pressing him, asking, “What happened to road facilities for our village? What happened to bus facilities? What happened to drinking water facilities?” As questions mounted, the minister was seen attempting to disengage from the situation.
In some instances, when Raja Kannappan reportedly tried to shift the discussion to developments in other states, villagers countered with pointed questions about local issues. “Where is the water for our village?” they asked.
He responded, “We will come back to power in another ten days; I will do it then. You have waited 75 years since Independence; can’t you wait another 10 days?” before leaving the spot.
Party workers accompanying the minister attempted to pacify the crowd, urging residents to support the DMK candidate and assuring that pending issues would be addressed. “Alright, alright, make him win this time, we will provide all the facilities,” they said.
However, villagers remained unconvinced. “They say everything has been done, but nothing has been done. Not even a bus service. It has been five years, there is still no proper bus,” one resident said.
Others highlighted the lack of infrastructure affecting daily life, including access to education. “From the forest areas, children have to go far for school – how can small children travel like this? There is no proper school here,” villagers added.
As the confrontation escalated, Raja Kannappan was seen climbing onto his campaign vehicle and leaving the area, while some of those accompanying him were heard remarking that he had managed to avoid a difficult situation.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP A Raja has come under criticism following a campaign speech in the Poonamallee Assembly constituency, where he appeared to conflate the ongoing Tamil Nadu Assembly elections with a Lok Sabha contest.
A video clip from the campaign, circulated widely on social media shows Raja urging voters to support the DMK candidate on the Rising Sun symbol and send the candidate to the Lok Sabha, despite the state being in the midst of Assembly polls. The speech, delivered at a public meeting for the DMK candidate in Poonamallee, was flagged by several Tamil media-linked social media accounts as a confusing moment during the campaign.
Observers noted that since Poonamallee is part of the Assembly election, Raja’s reference to the Lok Sabha has been interpreted either as a slip of the tongue or a lapse during a public address.
He said, “Now calculate this. Is there a Chief Minister in Bihar today? What is his name? Nitish Kumar is there, right? Just as Anna fought for Tamil Nadu and for Tamil Nadu’s rights, in the same way Nitish Kumar fought for the rights of his state, is missing. There is no Marathi leader today. They captured Maharashtra, they captured Uttar Pradesh, they captured Madhya Pradesh. One by one, they are coming down from Delhi, shouting Hindutva, Jai Shri Ram, Bharat Mata ki Jai. The problem is, wherever they cannot enter directly, they climb onto someone else’s shoulders. They could not enter Andhra, so they climbed onto Chandrababu Naidu’s shoulders and came up to Tiruttani. Then when they tried to enter here, an ellaichaami (border guardian deity) is standing there and not allowing them inside – Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin. When they wondered how they could not enter, they looked closely, they realized he was not alone; behind him stood the great ideology of Periyar, Anna and Kalaignar. So, they could not enter directly. Then they looked for a Tamil Nadu man – a gullible fool from the same race, group as Stalin – whose shoulders they could ride on, and that man was Edappadi Palaniswami. They could not enter inside so they climbed on to Edappadi Palaniswami’s shoulders and try to enter saying we are also like you. This election is not just for this constituency alone; it is an election for Tamil Nadu itself. the day Stalin released the manifesto, we could have declared him as CM. But only if we cross 200 seats, Modi and Amit Shah will get scared and decide not to amend the Constitution and realise that until the time there is a leader like Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, they must realise the feeling that they cannot do anything. If Stalin must return as Chief Minister with 200 seats, and if India, the Constitution and the nation are to be protected, then our Krishnasamy must be voted for on the Rising Sun symbol and sent to Parliament.”
