AAP leader loses cool over BJP’s indifference towards rape victims, says ‘Get gang-raped, will pay 20L’

The deletion of over 58 lakh names from West Bengal’s draft electoral rolls following a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has sparked widespread concern and is likely to deepen political tensions in the poll-bound state.

According to the Election Commission, the revision exercise has identified 24 lakh voters as deceased, 19 lakh as relocated, 12 lakh as missing, and 1.3 lakh as duplicate entries. The draft list, published after the completion of the first phase of SIR, aims to remove errors and duplication from the electoral rolls.

However, the scale of deletions has raised fears that a large number of eligible voters may have been wrongly excluded. The Election Commission has said that individuals whose names are missing can file objections and seek corrections. The final voter list is scheduled to be published in February next year, after which the Assembly election announcement is expected. Notably, the last Special Intensive Revision in Bengal was conducted in 2002.

The development has intensified the political row over the SIR process. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress have strongly opposed the exercise, accusing the Centre and the Election Commission of attempting to disenfranchise lakhs of voters ahead of the elections.

Addressing a rally in Krishnanagar earlier this month, Banerjee urged people to protest if their names were removed from the voter list, alleging intimidation during elections and warning of serious consequences if voting rights were taken away.

The BJP, meanwhile, has defended the revision and accused the Trinamool Congress of politicising the issue to protect what it claims is an illegal voter base. Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari alleged that the ruling party fears losing power due to the removal of deceased, fake, and illegal voters.

The controversy comes amid earlier allegations by the Trinamool Congress that excessive work pressure during the SIR led to the deaths by suicide of some Booth Level Officers (BLOs), for which the party blamed the Election Commission. With the draft list now out, another round of political confrontation appears imminent.

As objections begin to be filed, the focus will be on whether the correction mechanism is accessible, transparent, and timely—critical factors in ensuring that no eligible voter is denied their democratic right ahead of a crucial election.

A Pakistani lawmaker has called out the hypocrisy of his country's leadership, drawing a parallel between Islamabad's military actions against Kabul and India's 'Operation Sindoor'.

Condemning the Pakistan army, led by Asim Munir, for strikes on Afghanistan - which resulted in civilian casualties - Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman questioned the consistency of Islamabad's logic. He argued that if Pakistan's cross-border attacks are considered justified, then the country has little ground to object when India enters Pakistani territory to eliminate terrorists.

Rehman was addressing the 'Majlis-e-Ittehad-e-Ummat' conference on Monday in Karachi's Lyari. The town recently gained international attention as the setting for the Ranveer Singh-starrer Dhurandhar, which depicted the intersection of informants and operatives within the Lyari underworld.

"If you say that we attacked our enemy in Afghanistan and justify this, then India can also say that it attacked Bahawalpur, Muridke, and the headquarters of groups responsible for the attack in Kashmir," Rehman said, referring to India's retaliatory strikes. "Then how can you raise objections? The same accusations are now being levelled against Pakistan by Afghanistan. How do you justify both positions?"

The JUI-F chief's remarks specifically referenced 'Operation Sindoor'.

On May 7, Indian armed forces carried out pre-dawn missile strikes on nine terror targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including the Jaish-e-Mohammad stronghold of Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base in Muridke.

Pak-Afghanistan Tension

Fazlur Rehman has been a consistent critic of the Pakistani government's policy towards Afghanistan. In October, during a peak in bilateral tensions, he offered to mediate between the two nations. According to a Dawn report, he stated, "In the past, I have played a role in reducing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I can still do so."

Rehman is known to wield significant influence within the region and remains the only Pakistani lawmaker to have met with the Taliban's supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada.

Recently, India condemned Pakistan's fresh strikes on Afghanistan. "We have seen reports of border clashes in which several Afghan civilians have been killed," Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at a weekly media briefing.

"We condemn such attacks on innocent Afghan people. India strongly supports the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Afghanistan," he said.

A spokesperson for the Taliban regime claimed Pakistan initiated the attacks and that Kabul was "forced to respond".

The two countries have been locked in an increasingly bitter dispute since the Taliban authorities retook control in Kabul in 2021, with Islamabad accusing its neighbour of harbouring terrorists - a charge that the Afghan government denies.

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.