The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (28 January 2026) issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking action against protestors accused of making defamatory and caste- and religion-based remarks against Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, following his judicial orders related to the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Thirupparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple in Madurai.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale heard the matter and issued notice to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

The PIL has been filed by Advocate G.S. Mani, associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Appearing in person, Mani alleged that protestors had made defamatory remarks targeting Justice Swaminathan with the intent to disturb social harmony and provoke law-and-order and communal unrest. He submitted that several representations had been made to the Tamil Nadu police regarding protests conducted outside the Madras and Madurai Benches of the High Court.

According to Mani, individuals affiliated with parties supporting the ruling DMK, including Communist parties, along with certain lawyers, had carried out illegal and unauthorised demonstrations in public places and repeatedly protested outside court premises. The protestors were alleged to have demanded the resignation of a sitting High Court judge and attributed improper motives to his judicial orders.

Mani further alleged that the State Government and police authorities had remained passive and failed to take action against those involved, despite complaints being submitted to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and the Registrars of the Madras High Court at both Chennai and Madurai.

However, Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the Court would not issue notice on emotive arguments alone. The Bench then asked Tamil Nadu State Counsel Advocate Sabarish Subramanian to appear to enable the Court to assess the present situation.

Subramanian informed the Court that the Tamil Nadu police had taken action on Mani’s representations. He added that the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, had sent communications to service providers directing them to preserve the URLs of links alleged to contain defamatory content against Justice Swaminathan, along with details of individuals involved in circulating such material.

Taking note of the submissions, the Bench directed the State to file a status report. The order recorded: “Issue notice. Learned standing counsel for State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice and is permitted to file status report in regards to steps taken pursuant to representation on 6.12.25 and 8.12.25, if any.”

Mani has sought directions from the Supreme Court to compel the Tamil Nadu Government and police authorities to initiate strict legal action, including criminal proceedings, against those responsible for the alleged acts.

The case arises from events following Justice Swaminathan’s order dated December 1, directing the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light a lamp on a stone pillar atop the Thirupparankundram hill near a dargah. Subsequently, he reprimanded the State Government for obstructing the implementation of the order.

After the State failed to comply, a contempt petition was filed. On 3 December 2025, Justice Swaminathan allowed devotees to proceed to the hill and light the deepam themselves, with CISF protection. He also quashed the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC and directed the State’s Chief Secretary and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) to appear before the Court.

The Tamil Nadu Government challenged the contempt order through a letters patent appeal, which was dismissed by a Division Bench. The State then approached the Supreme Court. Separately, opposition MPs have also moved an impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter further on Monday, 2 February 2026.

Source: LiveLaw

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

The post Supreme Court Seeks DMK Govt Report Over Defamatory Campaign Targeting Justice GR Swaminathan After Thirupparankundram Deepam Order appeared first on The Commune.

What initially appeared to be the murder of a migrant worker whose body was found stuffed inside a gunny bag in Adyar has now unfolded into a far more brutal triple murder, with police confirming that the victim’s wife and young child were also killed and their bodies disposed of at different locations.

On the morning of 26 January 2026, residents of First Avenue in Indira Nagar, Adyar, noticed a sack dumped along the roadside with blood oozing from it and alerted the police. A team from the Adyar police station rushed to the spot, opened the sack, and found the body of a man, tied up and bearing multiple bleeding injuries to the head and face, clearly indicating homicide. The body was sent to Government Royapettah Hospital for post-mortem examination.

Subsequent investigation led to the arrest of five persons on Monday. During interrogation, the accused made a shocking disclosure, stating that they had not only murdered the man found in the sack but had also killed his wife and their young child.

Police later identified the deceased man as Gaurav Kumar, a migrant worker from Bihar, aged around 24 years (some reports say he was 35 years), who had come to Chennai seeking employment. He was working as a security guard with a private company in the Adyar area and was in the process of taking up work with another security agency. His wife, Munita Kumari, had also accompanied him, and the couple had a young child.

According to police sources, the family had approached the accused in connection with a security guard job. During this period, a dispute arose. Initial police findings indicate that the woman was sexually assaulted in the Tharamani area, and when Gaurav Kumar questioned the act, an altercation broke out, leading to the murder of all three family members.

Investigators said CCTV footage from the neighbourhood showed two men arriving on a motorcycle around midnight on Sunday and dumping the sack containing Gaurav Kumar’s body before fleeing. Based on the motorcycle’s registration details, police tracked and detained suspects, leading to the arrests.

Following the confessional statements of the accused, police launched extensive search operations at multiple locations. Searches were carried out at the Perungudi dump yard and along the banks of the Cooum river. With assistance from the fire and rescue services, police recovered the body of the couple’s two- to three-year-old child from a riverbank area near Madhya Kailash. The child’s body has also been sent for post-mortem examination.

The search for Munita Kumari’s body is continuing, with police teams combing several locations based on information provided by the accused. Officials said that the bodies of the three victims were dumped at different places to avoid detection.

Source: DT Next

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

The post Dravidian Model: Migrant Worker Stuffed In Sack After Assault On Wife; Entire Family Murdered In Adyar appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 January 2026, raised serious concerns over what it described as a possible attempt by two upper-caste candidates to misuse the Buddhist minority quota to secure admission to postgraduate medical courses.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by two candidates from Haryana seeking admission under the Buddhist minority quota to a postgraduate medical course at Subharti Medical College in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The institution has been recognised as a Buddhist minority educational institution.

The petitioners claimed they had converted to Buddhism and relied on minority certificates issued by a Sub-Divisional Officer to establish their eligibility as members of the Buddhist minority community.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted that the petitioners belonged to the Punia caste and asked, “Punias can be in the Scheduled Caste category, Punia can be Jat also which is general category. Which Punia you are?”

When counsel replied, “We are Jat,” the Chief Justice questioned, “Then how you become [minority]?”

The counsel responded, “We have converted to Buddhism. Anybody can convert to Buddhism.”

Expressing scepticism, the Chief Justice remarked, “This is another way of fraud…you want to snatch the rights of some genuine bona fide minority….you are one of the richest, best located, upper caste communities…holding agricultural lands and having facilities…you should be proud of your merit….instead of taking the rights of who are actually deprived…”

When counsel maintained that the petitioners had genuinely adopted Buddhism, the Chief Justice cautioned, “Then everybody will start…upper castes will start adopting…. Don’t compel us to make further comments…”

The Bench noted that both candidates had appeared for NEET-PG 2025 as general category applicants and had explicitly declared that they did not belong to the Economically Weaker Sections. In this context, the Court questioned how minority certificates could have been issued to them.

In its order, the Bench observed, “We have ascertained form the counsel that the candidates are actually born as general category candidates. It appears that the issuance of certificates by SDO requires a deeper probe by the higher authorities, especially in light of the fact that in NEET-PG 2025, candidates appeared as general category candidates, and they further categorically mentioned that they do not belong to the Economically Weaker Sections of society. Then how do they become candidates belonging to the minority community?”

The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to submit a report within two weeks clarifying:
(i) the guidelines governing the issuance of minority certificates.
(ii) whether an upper-caste candidate who is not part of the EWS category and who declared general category status in the 2025 examination can be treated as belonging to a Buddhist minority community; and
(iii) if not, the basis on which the Sub-Divisional Officer issued the certificates in question.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners’ application seeking admission under the minority quota.

The petition, filed by Nikhil Kumar Punia and Ekta, had sought directions to allot 50 per cent of seats in Subharti Medical College to Buddhist minority candidates, relying on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 20 October 2022, in SLP (C) No. 17003 of 2022. The petitioners also referred to the minority status granted to the college by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions in 2018.

The Court, however, declined to grant any relief, holding that the matter raised serious questions warranting further examination by state authorities.

Source: LiveLaw

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

The post “Another Way Of Fraud”: Supreme Court Cracks Down On Conversion-For-Quota Claims, Warns Upper Castes Against ‘Snatching Rights Of Genuine Minorities’ appeared first on The Commune.

A new cultural dialogue platform titled Conversations on Culture is set to make its debut on 7 February 2026, at the Kalakshetra Foundation, bringing together scholars, artists, and practitioners for a full-day engagement on art, heritage, and living traditions.

Curated and presented by Avalamba Foundation in collaboration with Kala Sadhanālaya, the initiative has been conceived as a forum for sustained and reflective conversations on India’s cultural inheritance, contemporary practice, and knowledge systems. Organisers said the platform evolved from informal discussions into a structured series aimed at examining culture not merely as history, but as living and relevant knowledge with present-day implications.

The inaugural edition will feature a day-long schedule of talks, panel discussions, and performances by noted speakers and artists from diverse disciplines.

Programme Highlights

The event will open at 10.00 AM with an inauguration by the Chief Guest, followed by a series of sessions beginning at 10.30 AM. The programme includes:

• “Folk Art All Around Us”, a talk by Nagraj Paturi
• “Archiving India’s Living Culture”, a talk by S Jayakumar
• “Tradition Meets Technology”, a talk by Arun Menon
• “Living Epics, Living Voices”, a talk and performance by Ramaa Bharadvaj
• “Beyond Display: Museums as Living Cultural Experiences”, a panel discussion with Anupam Sah and Ahalya Matthan
• “Preserving Heritage and Art: A Policy Perspective”, a panel discussion featuring Raghava Krishna, A K Sriram, and Ketu Ramachandrasekhar
• “Who Owns the Past?”, a conversation with historian Vikram Sampath

The day will conclude with “Raga Sangamam”, a concert by Carnatic vocalists Ranjani and Gayatri.

Platform Vision

According to the organisers, Conversations on Culture seeks to create space for pause and reflection on what societies inherit, what they forget, and what continues to shape collective identity. The platform aims to connect scholarship, practice, and public engagement, while also exploring Indian Knowledge Systems and cultural continuity through dialogue rather than prescription.

The organisers have described the first edition as the beginning of a longer series, with future editions planned around similar themes. Cultural enthusiasts and the general public have been invited to follow official updates and block their calendars for the February 7 event at Kalakshetra Foundation.

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

The post ‘Conversations On Culture’: A New Forum On Art, Heritage And Living Traditions To Open In Chennai appeared first on The Commune.

A controversy that began with police action against RSS workers over an Operation Sindoor floral decoration near the Muthupilakkad Sri Parthasarathy Temple in Sasthamkotta in September 2025 has now culminated in a dramatic political shift within the temple’s administration, with a devotees’ panel securing a clean sweep in the latest committee elections.

Case Over Floral Decoration

On 4 September 2025, the Sasthamkotta police registered a case against 27 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sympathisers and workers for laying a floral carpet (pookkalam) bearing the inscription “Operation Sindoor” and a saffron flag-like floral design on the main road leading to the Sri Parthasarathy Temple.

In Kerala’s Kollam district, police forced the removal of an Onam Pookalam simply because it carried the words “Operation Sindoor.”

This isn’t Pakistan. This is Kerala under Left rule, where even flowers with patriotic messages are treated as a threat.

All for appeasement of… pic.twitter.com/d7GPaSY41S

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) September 6, 2025

According to the police, the floral arrangement was made without the permission of the temple committee and in alleged violation of a court order that prohibited the erection of flags, decorations, or flex boards in and around the temple premises if such acts were likely to create unrest.

The First Information Report (FIR), lodged by Asokan C, an office-bearer of the temple committee, stated that the accused had also installed a flex board carrying an image of Chhatrapati Shivaji about 50 metres from the temple and that their actions were intended to provoke clashes between workers of different political parties.

The case was registered under Sections 223 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot), and 3(5) (criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The police action drew sharp political reactions. The Bharatiya Janata Party condemned the FIR, describing it as an attack on an expression meant to honour Operation Sindoor. BJP leaders accused the Kerala police of overreach and demanded that the case be withdrawn, arguing that the floral decoration symbolised national pride and the valour of the armed forces.

Temple Committee Election

The episode became a major point of contention in the subsequent administrative committee election of the Muthupilakkad Sri Parthasarathy Temple, held recently in Sasthamkotta.

In the election, conducted by dividing the temple area into nine wards, the Bhaktajana Samithi secured all 27 of the 27 seats, defeating the CPI(M)–Congress combine that had previously controlled the temple administration.

275 RSS workers slapped with cases for an Operation Sindoor Rangoli at Parthasarathi Temple in kerala.
Same temple committee election: RSS panel wins 27/27, crushing a combined Congress–Communist front.
This isn’t coincidence. This is conviction.
Yes — Kerala is changing.” pic.twitter.com/mpcwZOjdA9

— Rocket Scientist (@Rockumon) January 27, 2026

For several years, the temple had been administered by a Left–Congress alliance. Following the election results, representatives of Bhaktajana Samithi described the verdict as a response from devotees against political intervention in temple administration. They stated that the committee would prioritise temple-related matters, act in accordance with devotees’ interests over the next three years and focus on the development of the temple and the surrounding area.

They also alleged that dissatisfaction among devotees over previous administrative decisions, including opposition to religious and cultural expressions and court petitions against symbols such as saffron flags, had contributed to the electoral outcome.

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

The post Booked For Pookkalam, Backed By Devotees: RSS-Linked Bhaktajana Samithi Sweeps Muthupilakkad Sri Parthasarathy Temple Poll appeared first on The Commune.

For weeks, protests against the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 have followed a familiar script. Anger has been aimed at the BJP, at the Modi government, at the Education Ministry. Hashtags accuse the regime of authoritarianism. Editorials warn of institutional overreach.

But that outrage is misdirected.

The real story of how the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 came to be is not one of ideological zeal or secret backroom bargaining. It is a story of courtroom pressure, strategic litigation, and bureaucratic capitulation where a balanced, defensible policy drafted by the Education Ministry itself was dismantled and rewritten under judicial supervision.

If critics want accountability, they need to follow the paper trail.

A Draft That Proved Better Policy Was Possible

In February 2025, the Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission released a draft titled the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025. That draft now reads like a document from another universe.

Measured. Cautious. Procedurally fair.

It squarely addressed caste discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the precise concern raised in a long-pending Supreme Court case, while preserving due process, institutional autonomy, and equality before law. Complaints were to be investigated with evidence from both sides. There were no automatic punishments. No presumption of guilt.

Most strikingly, the draft included a safeguard almost unheard of in contemporary Indian policy: penalties for demonstrably false or malicious complaints.

This was a recognition of reality. Universities are competitive ecosystems, riddled with personal rivalries, ideological factions, and career stakes. Any grievance mechanism without abuse safeguards becomes a weapon.

The draft also avoided rigid identity-based silos. Equity Committees were broad-based, chaired by institutional heads, and included representation without converting them into caste-exclusive tribunals.

Observers across the spectrum acknowledged that, with refinements from the 391 public suggestions it received, the February 2025 draft could have become a model anti-discrimination framework.

So, what went wrong?

The Case That Changed Everything

The origins of the regulations lie in tragedy.

After the deaths of Rohith Vemula in 2016 and Payal Tadvi in 2019, their mothers, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, filed a Public Interest Litigation in August 2019. Represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising, the petition did not demand radical new law. It sought enforcement of the existing 2012 UGC equity regulations: functional Equal Opportunity Cells, real monitoring, and integration with accreditation bodies like NAAC.

The Supreme Court issued notices. And then, nothing. For nearly five years, the PIL gathered dust.

That changed in January 2025, when a bench led by Supreme Court of India Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan demanded answers. The UGC was rebuked for non-compliance and asked to produce data. Under judicial prod, the February 2025 draft emerged.

At this point, the system had done its job. But the equilibrium didn’t last.

15 September 2025: When Balance Collapsed

At a hearing on 15 September 2025, Indira Jaising pressed for ten specific changes. These included grievance committees with heavy “marginalised” representation, withdrawal of grants for non-compliance, explicit anti-segregation clauses, and stronger punitive powers.

The bench set an eight-week deadline and made it clear that omissions would be scrutinised.

The Education Ministry now faced a choice. It could defend its draft, explain why safeguards against misuse were essential, and argue that equity does not require abandoning due process. Or it could surrender.

It chose surrender.

13 January 2026: The Rules Become Unrecognisable

When the final UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 were gazetted on January 13, the transformation was stark.

Every major demand raised in court had been absorbed. Sections now included debarment powers, explicit anti-segregation mandates, mandatory counselling, confidentiality rules, anti-retaliation clauses, Equity Squads, Equity Ambassadors, and committees packed with SC/ST/OBC/PwD/women representation.

What vanished entirely were the safeguards.

The penalty for false complaints? Deleted.
Procedural symmetry? Gone.
Equality of protection? Abandoned.

The final regulations define “caste-based discrimination” exclusively as acts against SC, ST, and OBC students. General category students are not covered by the same framework. They cannot file equivalent complaints under the same rules. They face institutional machinery without reciprocal protections.

This is asymmetry by design.

The Minister’s Assurances Don’t Change the Text

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan broke his silence on 27 January 2026, assuring the public that no one would be harassed and that misuse would not be tolerated.

BIG BREAKING Dharmendra Pradhan speaks for the first time on UGC Controversy.

He says it is under Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

“I want to assure everyone that no one will be subjected to harassment and there will be no discrimination”

“As far as this issue is concerned, it… pic.twitter.com/nKzdTVBQNj

— News Algebra (@NewsAlgebraIND) January 27, 2026

But policy is not governed by press statements. It is governed by gazette notifications.

The notification is unambiguous. Only certain groups can claim caste-based discrimination. Only one side enjoys institutionalised protection. The ministry’s own February 2025 draft proves this was not inevitable, it was a conscious reversal.

Why the Blame Game Misses the Point

This is why indiscriminate BJP-bashing misses the real failure.

The Education Ministry did not ideologically engineer this outcome. It already had a better policy on the table. The final rules emerged not from partisan obsession, but from an unwillingness or inability to defend that policy under judicial pressure.

This was not policymaking. It was policymaking by attrition.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising has since dismissed protests as an “upper caste reaction” and insists the regulations remain inadequate. That position is telling. It confirms what critics fear: that the framework is not meant to be neutral, but corrective in only one direction.

A Lost Opportunity

The tragedy is not that India tried to address caste discrimination in universities. That was necessary and overdue.

The tragedy is that the state abandoned the principle that justice must bind everyone equally.

The February 2025 draft showed that it was possible to protect vulnerable students without dismantling due process, without creating two classes of citizens, and without turning equity into a zero-sum contest.

That draft died not because it was unjust but because it was not defended.

If outrage is to mean anything, it should be directed where it belongs: at the process that turned a careful reform into a divisive instrument, and at the actors who insisted that balance itself was unacceptable.

Until that reckoning happens, the controversy over the UGC Equity Regulations will remain not a debate about discrimination but a warning about how policy is captured in plain sight.

Source: Swarajyamag

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

The post UGC Equity Rules: Done With Bashing BJP? Here’s How Ultra-Leftist Lawyer Indira Jaising Engineered The Rewriting Of A Balanced Draft appeared first on The Commune.

A behind-the-scenes (BTS) video from the shooting spot of the recently released Tamil film Parasakthi, directed by Sudha Kongara and starring Sivakarthikeyan, Ravi Mohan, Sreeleela, Atharvaa, and Prithvi Pandiraj, has gone viral on social media, triggering widespread discussion over an on-camera exchange between the director and the lead actor.

Sk pr work started to trash the director and escape this guy deserves all the hate https://t.co/emRaxfm6EY pic.twitter.com/NwPxNlt97x

— ROLEX ரசிகன் (@itis_rolex) January 27, 2026

Ennamo reading ayae neenga thaan industry la kandu pudicha maari

SK(Sivakarthikeyan) bashing SK (SudhKongara)

This is peak cinema pic.twitter.com/HoFP26Vbx5

— Hari_reactS (@BuddyCinema) January 27, 2026

The video, which appears to be from a script-reading and discussion session during filming, opens with Sudha Kongara telling the team to “understand the period.”  She adds, “I know she prepared very well,” and Sudha Kongara gestures towards three co-stars – Sivakarthikeyan, Atharvaa, Ravi Mohan and says, “And so also these three gentlemen.” She then adds, “They did a lot of reading and all that, which I believe they have not done before.” Ravi Mohan responds, “Yeah, no, not [before].”

Sudha Kongara points towards Ravi Mohan and Sivakarthikeyan and says, “He has not done, he has not done [script reading] and he’s done some.” Pointing to Sivakarthikeyan, Kongara said, “Sir doesn’t do. Others did.” Immediately Sivakarthikeyan interrupts in a defensive tone, saying, “I’ve done readings. Don’t assume like that. It’s like you’ve lived my life with me. You’re talking as if you invented script reading in the industry. I’ve done readings [for all my films].”

Kongara justifies her statement saying, “You are the one who told me you have never done any reading.”

He further clarifies that he has prepared script readings for all his films, including Amaran, Maaveeran, and Madarasi. He adds, “I have done for Amaran, Maaveeran, Madarasi. Everyone prepares properly, ma’am. Just because someone is cheerful doesn’t mean they don’t work. Even students who study well are usually cheerful.”

The exchange has since been widely shared online, with many social media users suggesting that Sivakarthikeyan appeared visibly irritated by Sudha Kongara’s remarks. Several users have interpreted the interaction as evidence of tension or misunderstanding between the director and the actor, even before the film’s release.

It is noteworthy that this clipping was removed from social media after it went viral.

The viral video has resurfaced amid existing discussions around Parasakthi, which received a poor response from audiences. Earlier, Sudha Kongara had sparked controversy by stating that negative reviews of the film were driven by fans of actor Vijay, allegedly frustrated over the non-release of the film Janayagan. It was in this context that the making video began circulating widely.

Sivakarthikeyan-Kongara Clash – Not The First Time

Meanwhile, speculation has also revived around a 2024 article that claimed Sivakarthikeyan may have quit his project, then tentatively referred to as SK25 (which turned out to be Parasakthi), following a clash with the director, Sudha Kongara.

According to those reports, a test shoot was halted after Sudha Kongara allegedly asked Sivakarthikeyan to trim his beard for the shoot, despite earlier instructions to retain his look. The director reportedly later explained that the beard resembled the style worn by actor Karthi in Paruthiveeran, which allegedly upset Sivakarthikeyan, leading him to walk off the set and stop communicating with the director.

However, these reports were speculative, with no official confirmation from either the actor or the director.

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

The post “You’re Talking As If You Invented Script Reading”: Parasakthi BTS Video Of Sivakarthikeyan Giving Stinging Savage Response To DMK Stooge Director Sudha Kongara Goes Viral appeared first on The Commune.

Just as Tamil Nadu recovers from the back-to-back assaults on migrant workers and other residents of the state by ganja/alcohol addicts, the news of another horror hits the headlines.

The body of an unidentified man, believed to be a migrant worker, was discovered inside a blood-soaked gunny bag near a two-wheeler showroom in Indira Nagar, Adyar, on Monday (26 January 2026) morning.

According to police, residents noticed the sack lying on First Avenue and alerted the Adyar police, who opened it to find the body of a man estimated to be about 40 years old. The victim had visible injuries, leading investigators to suspect homicide.

Preliminary inquiries suggest that two individuals arrived on a motorcycle and abandoned the bag at the location around midnight on Sunday, 25 January 2026. Police are examining CCTV footage from nearby establishments to trace the motorcycle, including attempts to identify its registration number.

Fingerprint and forensic teams were deployed to the scene to collect evidence. The body was later sent to Government Royapettah Hospital for a post-mortem examination.

Officials said efforts are underway to establish the identity of the deceased, including cross-checking recent missing persons reports filed across the city. Further investigation is in progress.

“இன்றே தேர்தல் வந்திடாதா” என்று மக்கள் ஏங்குமாறு சீரழிந்துள்ள சட்டம் ஒழுங்கு!

சென்னையில் அடையாறு அருகே சாக்கு மூட்டையில் வெட்டுக் காயங்களுடன் இரத்தம் வழிய வடமாநில இளைஞர் ஒருவரின் சடலம் மீட்கப்பட்டுள்ளது அதிர்ச்சியளிக்கிறது.

மாநிலத் தலைநகரிலேயே சிறிதும் பயமின்றி கொன்றுவிட்டு,… pic.twitter.com/hLivJUwLa2

— Nainar Nagenthran (@NainarBJP) January 27, 2026

Source: Times of India

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

The post Dravidian Model Tamil Nadu: Unidentified Man, Reportedly A Migrant Worker, Found Murdered In Gunny Bag In Chennai’s Adyar appeared first on The Commune.

In a significant ruling on temple administration and the use of religious endowment funds, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 23 January 2026, quashed the TN government’s ₹40-crore “Iconic Project” proposed at Sri Kallazhagar Temple, holding that the project was sanctioned and executed in violation of statutory safeguards.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan set aside the government order and related proceedings that permitted large-scale civil works at the ancient temple using temple funds. The court held that the utilisation of surplus temple funds without mandatory sanction under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act was illegal.

Quashing the project in its entirety, the Bench made sharp observations on the manner in which the temple had been administered for decades. “To have a major temple managed by a Fit Person/Executive Officer for decades is a travesty of law,” the court said, underscoring that development proposals must originate from the duly constituted Board of Trustees and not from the Minister or the State.

The court also ruled that Executive Officers cannot continue indefinitely in temples, reiterating that their role is temporary in nature. In the case of Sri Kallazhagar Temple, the presence of an Executive Officer for over five decades was found to be contrary to law.

In its findings, the Bench emphasised that temple funds cannot be diverted for what it described as “crass commercial development” and that heritage, agama norms and the sanctity of ancient shrines must prevail over modern concrete structures. It directed that no new concrete constructions be undertaken near ancient shrines or water bodies within the temple complex.

The court further held that statutory approvals from the Archaeological Survey of India and local planning authorities are mandatory for any works at the temple, given its antiquity and heritage status.

A series of time-bound directions have been issued to the Tamil Nadu government and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to bring temple administration in line with the law. Observers have noted that the ruling raises questions about whether these directions will be complied with, citing past instances where court orders, such as those relating to the publication of audit reports and the Tirupparankundram matter were allegedly not implemented.

The petitions were filed by Venkatesh Sowrirajan of Thirukkannapuram and A.V.B. Prabhu of Azhagarkoil. The petitioners were represented by advocates M.R. Venkatesan, Arun Chockalingam and Vadiraj Anirudh. The court also recorded its appreciation of the submissions made by Rangarajan Narasimhan of OurTemples, describing his presentation as helpful.

Legal observers say the judgment could have wider implications for temple governance in Tamil Nadu, reinforcing the primacy of trusteeship and limiting the State’s role to regulatory oversight.

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

The post Madras High Court Quashes ₹40-Crore ‘Iconic Project’ At Kallazhagar Temple; Pulls Up Dravidian Model HR&CE appeared first on The Commune.

The University Grants Commission’s newly notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 have triggered widespread protests across university campuses, with general-category students and sections of faculty expressing concerns over alleged vagueness, potential misuse, and lack of safeguards against false complaints. Amid the backlash, the regulations, which mandate equity committees, helplines, and time-bound action on complaints of caste-based discrimination, particularly from SC, ST, and OBC students have found strong backing from several political leaders and student groups.

Speaking in defence of the regulations, Kanchan Yadav, national spokesperson of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, said the UGC’s move was long overdue and accused sections of the upper-caste society of resisting any reform aimed at marginalised communities.

Responding to protests by groups including the Karni Sena and other savarna organisations demanding the rollback of the regulations, Yadav said, “Look, it was very necessary. And it’s not that it has become necessary only now, it was needed long ago. Especially, whenever any government tries to do something new for OBCs, SCs, STs, we have seen that the upper-caste mindset, the Manuvadi mindset, always opposes it.”

Rejecting the claim that equity measures deprive others of their rights, she said, “They are not taking your rights, they are asking for their own rights. This needs to be understood.”

Citing her experience at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Yadav alleged discrimination in higher education admissions, stating, “In JNU, there is a 100-mark interview for PhD admissions through JRF. Now, if the candidate is from an upper caste, they will be given 80 or 90 marks out of 100. But candidates from Bahujan communities are given 10, 20, or 30 marks and are failed.”

She further linked institutional discrimination to student suicides, saying, “That is why you see that every year, whether in IITs, Delhi University, or JNU, Bahujan students commit suicide due to harassment. We have not forgotten the Rohith Vemula case.”

When questioned about objections to including OBCs under the regulations, Yadav challenged critics to produce representation data. “How many OBC professors are there in central universities? OBCs form nearly 50% of the population. Do you see 50% OBC professors anywhere?” she asked, adding, “Show us the data! Let the central government present the data!”

Addressing claims by savarna groups that the regulations would divide Hindus, Yadav said, “If they are truly talking about Hindu unity, then their own Hindu brothers and sisters from the OBC community should come forward in support.” She added that OBCs were often considered Hindu only for electoral purposes, saying, “You stop considering them as Hindus the moment they demand their rights.”

On fears expressed by sections of the upper-caste community that the rules could be misused to “frame” individuals, Yadav dismissed the need for reassurance. “We don’t need to assure them. They should trust by themselves,” she said, adding, “If we are getting any rights today, why should we assure you? You should trust by yourselves.”

Reacting to street protests by Karni Sena members, she questioned their legitimacy, stating, “What kind of army are you? We didn’t create you as an army, we don’t consider you an army.” She added, “99% of the country’s population doesn’t consider them an army.”

Concluding her remarks, Yadav took a confrontational stance on opposition to the regulations, saying, “If injustice happens to a community, and a law has come to provide them justice, then you are opposing that law because you will be framed. You should be framed!” She added, “You should be framed on the basis that you have never given the 90% of this country’s OBC, SC, ST, the majority population, their rights.”

Elaborating further, she said, “They should believe it themselves that people who have enjoyed the pleasures of power for thousands of years, people who for thousands of years have sat in the institutions, people who for thousands of years have occupied the country’s universities, the country’s institutions, the gurukuls – wherever and in whatever form our systems existed – people who captured every space in the education system, if today we are getting some rights, then why should we convince you? You believe it by yourself.”

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

The post GC Must Be Framed With False Charges Because They Never Gave Rights To SC/ST, Says RJD Spokie Kanchan Yadav appeared first on The Commune.