Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday claimed that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s chair was not safe, and that people, including farmers and younger generations, would bring about a change in the state.

Speaking to reporters, Akhilesh Yadav said the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would face growing public opposition and asserted that the government was attempting to retain power amid mounting challenges.

“Even the Chief Minister’s chair is not safe, because the people are going to take it away from him this time. It is not just the people; farmers are also going to take his chair away. Gen Z is keeping a close watch, and Gen Alpha has also arrived. So, this time, his chair is not going to be safe. They can say anything to save it,” he said.

The Samajwadi Party leader further said the BJP itself was responsible for the problems facing the state and that removing the party from power was the only way to resolve the crisis.

“The BJP must be removed. The BJP itself is the real crisis. The crisis will end only when the BJP is removed. There is only one crisis, and that is the Bharatiya Janata Party,” he said.

Akhilesh Yadav also accused the ruling party of exploiting people’s religious faith and devotion to protect its government.

Referring to the 2020 incident involving gangster Vikas Dubey, whose vehicle overturned while he was being transported by police, he alleged that the incident had helped the government avert a political crisis.

“Look, have faith. You can have faith and devotion, but the BJP members are known for playing with people’s faith and devotion. You all know how people’s faith has been exploited. First, it was people’s faith in temples, and now their faith is being exploited in this matter…This government is trying to save itself from falling. Remember, Vikas Dubey’s vehicle did not overturn; they saved the government from collapsing. This show of faith and devotion is being used to protect their government,” he said.

Akhilesh Yadav also raised concerns over the alleged circulation of voice messages targeting voters, questioning how BJP leaders had obtained voter lists that were not publicly available to everyone.

“Voter lists are not available to everyone, but they are available to all BJP leaders. Voice messages are being sent, and calls are being made. How did the voter lists reach the ministers in the BJP government?” he asked.

He alleged that ministers had obtained voter data and engaged a company to circulate messages, adding that such communications could not be sent without access to the relevant information.

The SP chief also accused the BJP government of electoral malpractice and alleged that officials in the Education Department, including BSAs and DIOSs, were intimidating voters through phone calls.

Akhilesh Yadav warned that officials allegedly involved in such activities could face legal consequences if evidence emerged against them. He urged the Election Commission to remain impartial and called on government officials to perform their duties without political interference.

“If they will be political workers, then they should prepare to go to jail,” he said, alleging irregularities in the education sector, including corruption in transfers and postings.

Referring to his earlier remarks during the elections in Ayodhya, Akhilesh Yadav said those allegedly involved in electoral malpractice would eventually face legal action.

“No one will save you. Today or tomorrow, whenever there is a change, the law will send them to jail,” he said.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned whether Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka could technically be described as Gen Z, after being informed that they were 27 and 32 years old, respectively, while hearing their plea challenging the extension of their judicial custody in the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the oral observations while hearing submissions by advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the two activists, who sought their release on personal bonds after the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) rejected their sureties and extended their custody.

When Chimni informed the High Court about the ages of the two petitioners, Justice Prasad remarked, “Then you are not Gen Z. What is Gen Z?” After being told that people born after 1997 are generally considered Gen Z, the High Court reiterated that the petitioners did not fall within that category.

The Delhi High Court also questioned how the nature of protests and the causes associated with them had evolved, observing that although students and young people had participated in earlier protests, the cause being pursued had since changed.

“Earlier, it was a student protest; children were there, but now it’s another cause. These people remain the same, but the cause is changed,” Justice Prasad orally remarked.

The judge then questioned the association of those organising such demonstrations and the purpose behind it, observing that these aspects could assume significance when authorities examined the possibility of a breach of peace and public tranquillity.

“When there is apprehension of breach of peace and tranquillity, all these questions will assume importance. What is your association? What is the purpose of the association?” the High Court remarked.

It added that such questions assumed significance when authorities were required to assess the likelihood of a breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity.

Justice Prasad observed that these issues could be examined in appropriate proceedings, but the immediate question before it concerned the insistence on furnishing bonds.

During the hearing, Chimni challenged the rejection of the sureties furnished by the petitioners and argued that the decision was legally unsustainable. He sought their release on the basis of personal bonds, contending that preventive custody could not be imposed arbitrarily.

However, the High Court questioned whether the rejection of sureties could be termed illegal and whether the SEM court’s order was amenable to a statutory revision. It also questioned the petitioners’ decision to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy of filing a revision petition was available.

Observing that there was a distinction between the maintainability of a petition and whether it ought to be entertained at that stage, Justice Prasad indicated that the petitioners should first await the outcome of the proceedings before the SEM court.

The judge also referred to the breach of bonds furnished by the activists earlier and their subsequent presence at Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a designated venue for demonstrations.

The Delhi High Court said that the challenge to the denotification was pending before the Supreme Court and that the notification had not been stayed.

Questioning the need to pursue High Court proceedings before the SEM court took up the matter later in the day, Justice Prasad suggested that the petitioners withdraw the plea and consider their legal options after the proceedings at 2 p.m. “Would it not be better for you to withdraw this, see what happens at 2 PM and then follow the course of law. It is for you to make a decision,” the judge said.

After the matter was passed over to enable the counsel to take instructions, Chimni informed the High Court that the petitioners wished to withdraw the plea. The Delhi High Court permitted the withdrawal and disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all contentions open.

The development came on the day the judicial custody of the two activists was due to end, with both scheduled to be produced before the SEM court. On Monday, SEM Ritu Raj had extended their custody, observing that their conduct “shows no respect for law” and reflected their “habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas”.

The SEM court had recorded that the investigating officer placed material on record indicating a likelihood of a breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. It also recorded that the two activists had allegedly breached bonds furnished before the SEM, South-West District, on October 11, and subsequently committed a breach of peace in the present case.

Das and Ranka, along with CJP member Ajinkya Shinde, were among 14 people detained on October 13 after they allegedly entered Jantar Mantar through private premises and obstructed police personnel from discharging their official duties.

The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and had raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) leaders on Wednesday strongly hit back at Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray following his recent assertions regarding a “saffron identity” and “regime change” and said that the public will reject this rhetoric.

While addressing a massive gathering during the annual Dussehra rally at the historic Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Park in Mumbai, Thackeray openly asserted that they were present to change the regime, arguing that any government failing to serve public interest must be replaced.

Reiterating his party’s claim to the saffron identity, Thackeray said, “Bhagwa (saffron) is our identity; no one can steal our identity.”

Thackeray remarked that a saffron atmosphere is currently present everywhere, and emphasised that this sacred saffron flag must be hoisted not only at the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly but also on the throne of Delhi.

Reacting sharply to these statements, Maharashtra Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA, Ram Kadam, speaking to media, stated, “The fear of ‘Operation Tiger 3’ was clearly visible in Thackeray’s speech.”

He claimed that the deep regret of ‘abandoning’ Hindutva was thoroughly evident. “Because of this very regret, Thackeray repeatedly pronounced the word Bhagwa and continuously took the name of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj throughout his address,” Ram Kadam alleged.

Kadam further questioned what he termed as the “double standards” of Thackeray, claiming that the “nation has witnessed how individuals accused of riots like Umar Khalid, who chant praises for Afzal Guru, are embraced and supported by Thackeray, and how he walks hand in hand with Rahul Gandhi, who repeatedly attacks Sanatan Dharma and links saffron with terrorism.”

Joining the criticism, Shiv Sena spokesperson Shaina NC told media, “Uddhav says that he doesn’t want ‘scarf-wearing’ Hindutva. But in 2019, when he formed an alliance with the Congress, he embraced ‘cap-wearing’ Hindutva.”

“Balasaheb Thackeray always urged people to say with pride that they are Hindus, whereas Uddhav Thackeray now advises people to say with pride that they are for regime change. The only difference is that one represents real Hindutva while the other stands for fake secularism,” she claimed.

Meanwhile, Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha member, Milind Deora, acknowledged that every citizen and every Opposition party possesses the democratic and constitutional right to protest; however, he strongly objected to the language used by Thackeray to compare situations with countries like France, Albania, Bangladesh, and Nepal.

“Every citizen and every Opposition party has the right to contest elections against the government and to make statements against the government. This is their constitutional, democratic right. However, the language used to compare things with France, Albania, Bangladesh and Nepal is clearly an attempt to spread anarchy and violence,” Deora alleged.

“The people of India will never accept this. If they want to bring about the so-called change, do it through elections, by earning people’s vote; not like this,” he told media.