Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): A video showing a woman—said to be dalit, being dragged out of the Collector’s office in Madhya Pradesh’s Singrauli district has surfaced on social media. The video has garnered thousands of views in a couple hours and have sparked a debate on the platform.

In the video it can be seen that a female cop and another lady forcefully dragging the dalit woman on the floor in the Collector’s office. According to the tweet, the incident took place on Wednesday during the Collector’s public hearing.

According to information, on Wednesday, a public hearing was organised at the Collectorate in the Singrauli district of Madhya Pradesh. A dalit woman who attended the public hearing, allegedly caused ruckus and was dragged out of the collectorate. A member of the public recorded the incident and uploaded it on social media garnering thousands of views. Information about the woman’s identity is still unknown.

Netizens React

Many users have expressed their outrage and condemnation of the authorities’ actions, highlighting systemic issues of caste-based discrimination and the mistreatment of marginalized communities.

Some comments call for immediate accountability and justice for the woman involved, urging higher authorities to intervene. “Dalit or not a Dalit, this is inhuman and concerned officials must be suspended”, wrote a user.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that residence-based reservation in Post Graduate (PG) medical courses under state quota is constitutionally invalid.

A bench, headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, said that providing for domicile or residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is constitutionally impermissible and cannot be done.

It opined that residence-based reservation is impermissible for the reason that such reservation runs counter to the idea of citizenship and equality under the Constitution.

It clarified that institutional preference or reservations to a reasonable extent permissible under the Constitution in PG courses, yet reservation in PG medical courses and other higher learning courses, on the basis of ‘residence’ violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

“We must also remember that, to a reasonable degree, residence-based reservation in a state is permissible for MBBS course, but the same reservation for PG courses is not permissible,” added the Bench, also comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti.

It referred to previous decisions of the apex court, where it was held that at the PG level, merit cannot be compromised, although residence-based reservation can be permissible to a certain degree in UG or MBBS courses.

In Chandigarh’s Government Medical College and Hospital, 64 PG medical seats falling under the state quota were reserved either for the ‘residents’ of Chandigarh or for those who have done their MBBS from the same college.

The prospectus provided a very wide definition of ‘residents’ of Chandigarh and even included a person who studied in Chandigarh at any time for 5 years or the children of parents who had property in the Union Territory for a period of 5 years at any point of time.

After several petitions were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging this residence-based reservation, the high court held that the reservation was given on the basis of a long-discarded principle of domicile or residence and was bad in law.

Upholding the decision, the Supreme Court said: “We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India.”

It said that the benefit of affirmative action in educational institutions to those who reside in a particular state can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses, but considering the importance of specialist doctors in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different state in the Union! This would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before the law,” the top court added.

It stressed that state quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India examination.

Chennai, Jan 29: The Puducherry unit of the AIADMK staged a protest on Wednesday demanding an immediate release of 13 Tamil fishermen, including six from the Union Territory’s Karaikal region, who were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy on January 27.

The fishermen were apprehended on charges of crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL).

AIADMK workers and functionaries, led by Puducherry unit secretary A. Anbalagan, gathered near the district collectorate and raised slogans against the Sri Lankan government, condemning its use of force against Tamil fishermen.

Speaking to the media, Anbalagan urged the Union government to take a firm stand against Sri Lanka’s “strong-arm tactics” and secure the release of the detained fishermen.

He also emphasised the need for proactive measures to prevent such incidents in the future.

“It is the responsibility of the Union government to ensure the safety of our fishermen while they venture into the sea. Fishermen from Tamil Nadu are increasingly fearful for their lives due to the aggressive actions of Sri Lankan maritime agencies,” said Anbalagan.

Puducherry Chief Minister N. Rangasamy has written to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, seeking his immediate intervention to secure the release of the 13 fishermen.

The Chief Minister urged the Union Minister to prioritise diplomatic discussions with the Sri Lankan government to ensure their safe return.

Additionally, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) V. Vaithilingam has also reached out to External Affairs Minister (EAM) S. Jaishankar, requesting his assistance in securing the release of the fishermen along with their boat.

In his letter, Vaithilingam stated, “I kindly request the Union Minister to intervene and persuade the Sri Lankan government to release the captured fishermen along with their boat.”

In response to the continued arrests of Indian fishermen, Tamil Nadu fishermen’s associations have announced a large-scale protest in Rameswaram on Friday, January 31. Fishermen and their families will participate in the demonstration, urging immediate action from the Union government.

The associations have strongly condemned these repeated arrests, calling them a serious threat to their livelihoods.

Antony John, a fishermen’s association leader from Rameswaram, expressed deep concern over the escalating situation:

“The Sri Lankan Navy is arresting our fishermen regularly. On Tuesday, they even fired at our men, injuring two of them. This has to stop,” he said.

John further lamented that fishing in the Palk Bay is becoming increasingly unsafe, with fishermen losing not just their livelihoods but also their boats and fishing equipment to Sri Lankan authorities.

Earlier this month, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had written to EAM Jaishankar on January 12, 2025, urging diplomatic intervention to secure the release of detained fishermen.

In his letter, the Chief Minister highlighted the economic distress caused by repeated arrests and boat seizures.

“The recurring arrests and boat seizures have severely impacted the livelihoods of our fishermen. Swift diplomatic intervention is essential to safeguard their rights,” he said.

With tensions rising, all eyes are now on the Union government’s response and the diplomatic measures it will take to resolve this longstanding issue.