Mumbai: The controversy over ‘I Love Mohammad’ posters, which began earlier this month in Uttar Pradesh’s Kanpur, has now triggered protests in several states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Telangana, and Maharashtra. Muslim clerics and community leaders in Mumbai have also stepped in, demanding withdrawal of cases filed by Kanpur police.

At Malvani police station in Mumbai, Maulanas and clerics submitted a memorandum claiming the FIRs were unjustified. They urged the state government to act swiftly and ensure that the religious sentiments of the community were respected.

The row started on 4 September during the Barawafat (Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi) procession in Kanpur. Groups of youths marched with green flags and posters reading “I Love Muhammad”, while distributing sweets and singing devotional songs. Later that evening, similar banners appeared on shopfronts and traffic points in Beconganj and Anwarganj.

According to locals, the act was purely devotional. However, some Hindu groups objected, arguing that this was a “new tradition” not associated with Barawafat celebrations.

Tensions rose after police removed a few banners citing lack of prior permission. Videos circulating online showed arguments and scuffles between residents and police. Crowds gathered demanding reinstatement of the posters, prompting police to use mild force and detain ten people.

Soon, similar disputes surfaced across Uttar Pradesh. In Bareilly, a proposed hoarding near Dargah Ala Hazrat was blocked by police, leading to a brief sit-in. In Sambhal, municipal workers erased wall graffiti with the same slogan, sparking late-night demonstrations.

On 9 September, Kanpur police filed FIRs against 24 people, accusing them of disturbing communal harmony by introducing a “new custom” during the procession.

The controversy gained momentum after AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the FIRs, insisting that saying “I Love Muhammad” was no crime.

Meanwhile, Kanpur Police Commissioner Ramkrishan Yadav defended his force, stating that the banners were obstructing traffic and had been erected without permission. “Our action was aimed at maintaining public order, not at hurting sentiments,” he said, appealing for peaceful celebrations.

The issue quickly spread beyond Kanpur. Demonstrations were reported in Nagpur, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Uttarakhand. In Mumbai, clerics held peaceful gatherings, but in Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand), the protests turned violent on Sunday night.

Police alleged that the Kashipur rally was held without permission. According to SSP Manikant Mishra, the crowd attacked police personnel and vandalised vehicles when officers tried to disperse them. Seven people were arrested, ten detained, and alleged mastermind Nadeem Akhtar was questioned. The district administration also demolished several structures, terming them “illegal encroachments.”

With protests still simmering, authorities are appealing for calm while religious leaders continue to demand withdrawal of FIRs. The row has underscored the deep sensitivities around faith, tradition, and freedom of expression—issues that remain at the heart of India’s communal debates.

Mumbai: The State Blood Transfusion Council (SBTC) has taken cognizance of a media report on the non-availability of “Fresh Whole Blood” at K.E.M. Hospital, Parel. The council has directed hospital officials to conduct an inquiry and submit a factual statement with proper clarification.

Media had published a report on August 11, 2025, titled ‘No fresh whole blood at KEM hosp, baby’s life at risk’. It highlighted the case of a newborn suffering from Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn (HDN), who received one unit of ‘O’ Positive fresh whole blood only after eight days. The unit was eventually sourced from Shatabdi BDBA Hospital, Kandivali, after KEM’s blood bank failed to arrange it.

Doctors warned that any delay in transfusion could worsen jaundice and anemia in the newborn, and in severe cases lead to life-threatening complications such as hydrops fetalis.

Following the report, RTI activist Chetan Kothari lodged a complaint with SBTC, attaching a copy of the article. He criticized the hospital’s “laziness” in arranging blood and pointed out that in such emergencies, two options are available: preparing fresh whole blood by mixing red cells with plasma, or urgently calling one or two donors of the required group, testing them, and providing the blood within four hours. While this may carry minimal infection risk, experts argue it is far safer than withholding transfusion, which could result in death or permanent harm to the baby.

Activists have long alleged that negligence and administrative lethargy often lead to such lapses, even though newborns are a special case. Unlike adult patients who can receive packed cells, newborns require only fresh whole blood. Repeated instances at a premier government hospital, they argue, raise serious questions of accountability.

Based on Kothari’s complaint, SBTC’s assistant director Dr. Purushottam Puri instructed KEM officials to conduct a probe and submit a factual clarification. The move comes amid widespread media attention, with SBTC stressing the need for an accurate and transparent account of the incident.

Meanwhile, after the report was published, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) also issued a clarification to this newspaper. It stated that, as per universal practice, donated whole blood is separated into components—red cells, platelets, and plasma—to maximize use.

However, in specific cases such as newborn transfusions, fresh whole blood is required without separation. The BMC further claimed that KEM’s blood bank has been proactively motivating donors to donate for such cases, and that a recent camp collected 900 units of blood.

Despite this, media has come across at least three separate instances in the same period where newborns at KEM urgently required fresh whole blood, raising concerns about gaps between policy and practice.

Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has disbursed Rs 25 lakh to a retired employee, which includes Rs 16 lakh for gratuity and Rs 9 lakh for interest, after delaying her gratuity payment due to an investigation involving her. Sujata Jadhav, a previous chief clerk, contested the BMC, recognised as the wealthiest municipal corporation but criticised for its management practices. More than ten years after retiring, Jadhav pursued justice in the labour court, resulting in a High Court decision that required her gratuity and interest to be paid.

The court ruled that gratuity must be disbursed within 30 days post-retirement, and if delayed, a 10 per cent interest applies, stressing that it cannot be delayed due to ongoing inquiries. Advocates Prakash Devdas and Vidula Patil represented Jadhav, effectively arguing her case in court.

Devdas commented on the impact of this situation on public finances, condemning the squandering resulting from the BMC’s negligence in meeting legal requirements, which might have avoided unnecessary expenditures. He emphasised the importance of accountability by proposing that the interest paid should be reclaimed from the officials who gave erroneous advice about withholding gratuity.

This situation emphasises a wider problem, as numerous other retired BMC workers face similar violations of their rights because of slight misconduct.

Devdas emphasises the need for prompt payment of obligations and compliance with regulations, claiming that incorrect interpretations of laws or guidance should be rectified to prevent additional misuse of public resources in the future. He determined that safeguarding the rights of retired staff is crucial for ensuring accountability and effective management of funds within the BMC.