Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has alleged that corruption in Uttar Pradesh is making it difficult for honest government officers to continue in service, claiming that some are choosing to leave before completing their tenure.

Yadav made the remarks while commenting on the resignation of IAS officer Divya Mittal. He alleged that the situation in the state was such that honest officers were finding it increasingly difficult to work.

According to Yadav, officers who want to discharge their duties honestly are facing an environment that is not conducive to their functioning. He claimed that some such officers are opting to leave government service rather than continue under these circumstances.

Akhilesh Yadav’s remarks on honest officers

Yadav linked the resignation of officers to what he described as the prevailing corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration.

The Samajwadi Party leader alleged that officers who do not want to compromise with corruption are being pushed towards leaving service. His remarks came in the context of Divya Mittal’s resignation from the IAS.

Yadav’s comments are allegations directed at the state administration and do not, by themselves, establish that corruption was the reason for any particular officer’s resignation.

Divya Mittal’s resignation

IAS officer Divya Mittal’s resignation was the immediate context for Yadav’s remarks. Yadav used the development to raise questions about the working environment for government officers in Uttar Pradesh.

The Samajwadi Party chief argued that the departure of officers before retirement raises concerns about the conditions under which government officials are expected to work.

His comments add to the political debate over governance and corruption in Uttar Pradesh.

A First Information Report has been registered against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Uttarakhand’s Haldwani over his alleged remarks concerning a purification ritual carried out at a public venue following a Congress event.

The case relates to a controversy surrounding a religious ritual at Haldwani’s Ramlila Maidan, where Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge had addressed a rally. The incident has triggered a political dispute between the Congress and the BJP over allegations of caste discrimination.

What is the case against Rahul Gandhi?

According to the complaint, Rahul Gandhi’s remarks about the incident allegedly hurt the sentiments of members of the Valmiki community.

The complainant has alleged that Gandhi described the cleaning and havan ceremony as an act of untouchability and an atrocity against the Scheduled Caste community without verifying the circumstances surrounding the ritual.

The FIR invokes provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with Sections 196 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Congress-BJP clash over purification ritual

The controversy began after a “shuddhikaran” or purification havan was conducted at Haldwani’s Ramlila Maidan after Kharge addressed a Congress rally there.

Congress leaders have alleged that the ritual reflected caste-based discrimination because Kharge is a Dalit leader. Rahul Gandhi had demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi ensure an FIR against those responsible under the SC/ST Act.

The BJP has rejected the allegations and said the ritual was not linked to Kharge’s caste. Organisers have also said the havan was conducted to cleanse the venue of general filth rather than because of the identity of the Congress leader who had addressed the rally.

The FIR against Gandhi has now added another dimension to the ongoing political dispute.

Union ministers Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi have clashed over the demand for a separate sub-category within the Scheduled Caste quota, with the disagreement escalating into calls for each other’s resignation.

The dispute began after Manjhi and his son, Bihar minister Santosh Kumar Suman, backed the idea of a sub-quota aimed at the most deprived sections among Dalits. Paswan, who heads the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), opposed the proposal, arguing that it could create divisions within the community.

Chirag Paswan opposes sub-quota

Responding to questions about Manjhi and Suman’s position, Paswan said a separate sub-category would create a division within the Dalit community.

He also linked the issue to the debate over the creamy layer and said those supporting the concept should give up their respective posts.

Paswan’s position is also consistent with the stand taken by his late father, Ram Vilas Paswan, who had opposed the creation of a separate “Mahadalit” category in Bihar during Nitish Kumar’s tenure as chief minister.

Jitan Manjhi demands Paswan’s resignation

Manjhi rejected Paswan’s criticism and said it was Chirag Paswan who should resign.

The former Bihar chief minister argued that some Dalit communities are more vulnerable than others and therefore require targeted welfare measures through a separate sub-category.

Manjhi also questioned the relevance of the creamy-layer issue to the demand for a sub-quota.

Santosh Suman backs father

Santosh Kumar Suman also entered the dispute through posts on X. Without naming Paswan directly, he referred to him as his “younger brother” and said he would resign alongside Paswan if the latter took the lead.

Suman maintained that his position was neither against reservations nor in favour of introducing a creamy layer. He argued that a quota within the existing quota system was different from the creamy-layer concept.

He also cited communities including Musahar, Bhuia, Nat and Dom, saying they continue to face discrimination even within the Scheduled Castes.

JD(U) seeks to end quota controversy

The Janata Dal (United), the second-largest NDA constituent in Bihar after the BJP, sought to defuse the dispute.

JD(U) legislature party leader and state minister Shrawon Kumar said reservations were introduced through the Constitution and that there should be no dispute over quotas.

The disagreement between the two Union ministers comes amid a wider political debate over the distribution of reservation benefits among different Dalit communities.