World Championships medallist Vinesh Phogat on Monday said that the women wrestlers who accused former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of sexual harassment will challenge a Delhi court's verdict acquitting him. A Delhi court cleared Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar of all charges in the case filed by the women wrestlers. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar acquitted Singh, a former BJP MP, along with Tomar, who previously served as the WFI's assistant secretary.

Reacting to the judgment, Phogat announced on X that the wrestlers had instructed their legal team to move a higher court against the acquittal. "The women wrestlers have asked their lawyers to file an appeal against this decision, and it will be submitted at the earliest. We have not given up hope, and our fight for justice will continue," she wrote.

Phogat also alleged that Singh received protection from the government and claimed that his political influence was used to pressure some complainants into stepping back from the case. "We are deeply disappointed that the court did not hold Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh guilty of the allegations made by the women wrestlers. From the very beginning, we felt that the administration, the government, and the entire system were working to shield him," she said.

She added that it took significant courage for the wrestlers to stage protests and secure the registration of an FIR against a politically influential figure. "Using his influence and political power, Brij Bhushan intimidated several girls into withdrawing their names. Despite that, many women wrestlers remained steadfast and continued pursuing the case in court," Phogat said.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Business Standard.

A teenage girl who was booked for allegedly making abusive remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a recent protest has issued a public apology after a video of her statement went viral on social media. In the video, the girl identifies herself as a 15-year-old and appeals for forgiveness, calling the incident the "first and last mistake" of her life.

The controversy began after videos allegedly showing the teenager making objectionable remarks against the Prime Minister during a protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar surfaced online. The clips quickly gained traction across social media platforms, drawing strong reactions from political circles as well as the general public. Following complaints, a case was registered, and the matter was taken up by law enforcement authorities.

In her apology video, the teenager appears emotional as she folds her hands and expresses regret over her actions. She says she never intended for the situation to escalate and apologises to Prime Minister Modi and the people of India. "I am just 15 years old. Please forgive me. This is the first and last mistake of my life," she says in the video, while assuring that she will not repeat such behaviour in the future. The girl also claims that she was influenced by people around her at the protest and acted without fully understanding the consequences of her words. Her apology has since become one of the most discussed videos on social media, with users expressing sharply divided opinions.

According to reports, the case was registered after complaints were filed over the alleged remarks. Delhi Police are examining the matter after a Zero FIR was transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction. Officials are expected to review the evidence and proceed in accordance with the law before taking any further action.

The case has also drawn attention because of the girl's claim regarding her age. While she identifies herself as a 15-year-old in the apology video, some media reports have indicated that official documents mention a different age. Authorities have not yet clarified the discrepancy, and the issue is likely to be examined as part of the ongoing investigation.

The incident has reignited debate over the limits of political expression, responsible conduct during protests, and the impact of social media in amplifying such controversies. Many users have argued that the girl's public apology reflects genuine remorse and that her age should be taken into account during legal proceedings. Others maintain that abusive language directed at constitutional authorities cannot be overlooked and that accountability should apply irrespective of political beliefs. Legal experts note that cases involving minors are governed by separate provisions under Indian law, making age verification an important aspect of the investigation. The final course of action will depend on the findings of the authorities and the applicable legal framework.

As the investigation continues, the viral apology video has become a focal point in a broader discussion on free speech, public responsibility, and the consequences of remarks made during politically charged events. The episode also serves as a reminder that in the age of social media, a few moments captured on camera can quickly evolve into a nationwide controversy with lasting legal and public implications.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from TOI.

As political activity gathers pace ahead of the next Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, the debate over social justice has once again moved to the centre of the state's political discourse. However, unlike previous elections that largely focused on caste-based mobilization and reservation policies, political parties are now attempting to strike a delicate balance between expanding support among backward communities while retaining the confidence of upper-caste voters. Uttar Pradesh, India's most politically significant state with 80 Lok Sabha seats, has long been shaped by caste equations. Every election in the state is influenced by alliances built across communities, making social engineering a key component of campaign strategy.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has enjoyed strong backing from upper-caste communities alongside significant support from non-Yadav Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and sections of Dalits, faces the challenge of preserving this broad social coalition. Political observers say the party will seek to reassure its traditional support base while continuing outreach to other social groups through welfare schemes and development initiatives.

At the same time, opposition parties are attempting to widen their own electoral base. The Samajwadi Party, traditionally associated with Yadav and Muslim voters, has increasingly tried to attract non-Yadav OBCs, Dalits and even sections of upper-caste voters by broadening its messaging around social justice, employment and governance.

The Congress, meanwhile, has also sought to revive its presence in the state by emphasizing constitutional values, inclusive development and social equity, although rebuilding its organizational strength remains an uphill task. Political analysts note that the meaning of social justice itself is evolving. While reservation and political representation remain important issues, younger voters are increasingly linking social justice with employment opportunities, quality education, transparent recruitment processes and access to government services. Concerns over competitive examinations, paper leaks and public sector recruitment have become part of the larger political conversation.

The competition for Dalit and OBC votes also remains intense. All major parties have stepped up organizational efforts and grassroots outreach as they prepare for the next electoral battle, recognizing that no single community is large enough to guarantee victory in Uttar Pradesh's complex political landscape.

Election strategists believe candidate selection, regional caste demographics, local alliances and booth-level organization will continue to play a decisive role alongside broader political narratives. Even relatively small shifts in voting patterns among key communities can significantly alter the outcome in closely contested constituencies.

With campaigning expected to intensify in the coming months, Uttar Pradesh is once again emerging as the country's most closely watched political battleground. The evolving debate around social justice, combined with changing voter priorities and caste equations, is likely to shape not only the state's electoral outcome but also influence the broader national political landscape.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from 

A fresh debate has emerged over the need to strengthen legal protections for peaceful protestors, with civil rights advocates calling for a framework that safeguards democratic expression while ensuring public order is maintained. Supporters of stronger legal safeguards argue that the right to protest is one of the foundations of a democratic society. They believe citizens should be able to gather, express disagreement, and demand accountability from authorities without the fear of unnecessary legal action.

The discussion has gained attention as activists and legal experts raise concerns about the increasing use of public order laws during demonstrations. They argue that while governments have a responsibility to prevent violence and protect public safety, laws should not unintentionally discourage peaceful participation or limit legitimate criticism.

Protest movements have historically played a major role in bringing social and political change. From campaigns for civil rights and workers’ protections to environmental movements and calls for government reforms, public demonstrations have often provided citizens with a platform to highlight issues that require attention. Legal experts say the challenge lies in creating a balance between individual freedoms and the responsibilities of the state. They emphasize that protecting protestors does not mean providing immunity for unlawful activities such as violence, destruction of property, or threats to public safety. Instead, the focus should be on ensuring that peaceful demonstrators are not treated as offenders simply for expressing their views.

Advocates of stronger protections are calling for clearer guidelines on protest-related laws, greater transparency in law enforcement actions, and safeguards against the misuse of legal provisions. They believe such measures can help build public confidence and encourage more people to engage in democratic processes.

Governments, meanwhile, maintain that reasonable restrictions are necessary to protect citizens, prevent disruptions, and maintain stability. Authorities argue that every right comes with responsibilities and that protests must be conducted within the boundaries of the law. The debate reflects a larger global conversation about the role of dissent in modern democracies. Supporters of protest protections say that a strong democracy is not one where disagreement is avoided, but one where citizens can express differences openly and peacefully.

As public movements continue to shape political and social discussions, the demand for a stronger legal shield for protestors is expected to remain a key issue for policymakers. The central challenge will be developing laws that protect both democratic freedoms and public safety without compromising either.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.

In a conversation with political editor Tom McIlroy and chief political correspondent Dan Jervis-Bardy during the 50th Labor conference in Adelaide, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas discussed his state’s political battle with One Nation. He said progressive groups should avoid dismissing or talking down to Pauline Hanson’s supporters, arguing that their concerns need to be understood rather than ignored. Addressing the ongoing debate over the AUKUS submarine deal, Malinauskas acknowledged concerns after the US revealed that Virginia-class submarine production rates had not improved. However, he maintained that walking away from the agreement would create greater strategic risks than the challenges surrounding the controversial defence partnership.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from The Guardian.

On Made in SG, Melanie Oliveiro chats with Singaporean singer-songwriter Frances Tan, who recently competed in the Commonwealth Song Contest — an international music competition featuring participants from all 56 Commonwealth countries. Tan shares her experience of being chosen as a Grand Finalist, representing Singapore alongside six other finalist nations. She also discusses her original track, Just Me, which she submitted as her contest entry.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.

Following the shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Donald Trump and the White House administration responded strongly, accusing the media and the Democratic Party of contributing to rising political violence. Reged Ahmad and Jonathan Yerushalmy explore the origins of the deep political divide between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. At the same time, Usha Vance has started a new podcast, raising questions about her motives, while King Charles’s upcoming visit to the White House is expected to shed light on Donald Trump’s relationship with the British monarchy.

Disclaimer: This video is taken from The Guardian.

In “Made in SG,” Melanie Oliveiro interviews author K. C. Vijayan about his biography The Benjamin Sheares Story: From Pioneering Gynaecologist to Singapore President. The book offers a vivid and humanising account of Benjamin Sheares, Singapore’s second President and a prominent figure in the Eurasian community, tracing his journey from working in busy maternity wards during the baby boom era to serving as President of Singapore from 1971 to 1981 at the Istana.

Disclaimer: This Podcast is taken from CNA.