Ex-Goa MLA quits TMC months after joining it
dubs it as 'communal' party trying to 'disturb secular fabric'
Panaji(PTI): Nearly three months after joining the Trinamool Congress (TMC), former Goa legislator Lavoo Mamlatdar on Friday resigned from the party, accusing it of being communal and trying to create a divide between Hindus and Christians for votes ahead of the state Assembly polls.
The former Ponda MLA had joined the Mamata Banerjee-led party in the last week of September. He was among the first few local leaders in the state to join the TMC, which has decided to contest all 40 seats in the Goa Assembly polls, due in February 2022.
He also alleged that the TMC was collecting the data of people in the name of rolling out a welfare scheme for women in the state if it is voted to power after the elections.
Talking to reporters after resigning from the party, Mamlatdar said, "I had joined the TMC because I was fully impressed with Mamata Banerjee-led party's performance in West Bengal (Assembly polls held earlier this year)."
"I was under the impression that TMC is a very secular party. But from whatever I have noticed in the last 15-20 days, I came to know that it is worse than the BJP," he alleged.
The TMC has forged a pre-poll alliance with the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP), of which Mamlatdar was an MLA between 2012 and 2017.
He alleged that the TMC was trying to divide Hindu and Christian votes.
"As part of their pre-poll alliance, they want that the Christian votes should go to the TMC and Hindu votes to the MGP...The TMC is a communal party, which is trying to disturb the secular fabric," he alleged.
He accused the TMC of trying to collect the data of people in the name of its Griha Laxmi scheme.
"We have found that under its Laxmi Bhandar scheme introduced in West Bengal, only Rs 500 are given, while here they are promising Rs 5,000 to women under the Griha Laxmi scheme, which is next to impossible. The promise of the scheme is entirely to collect data from Goa," he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
