CBSE Class X and Class 12 will start tomorrow, 17th February 2026. The Central Board of Secondary Education has also issued an official notice with a stern warning against fake news and counterfeit claims. It specifically refers to the speculations of question paper leakages on social media.The Central Board of Secondary Education has reported that there have been elements in the past years who have tried to pass misinformation at the time of examination. These messages were usually accompanied by fake information that there was a leakage of the Class X or Class XII question paper. In other instances, fake question papers were shared on the internet and passed off as genuine.The Board has made it clear that this is not the case and that they are trying to confuse people. Rumours have the potential to interfere with the focus of students.CBSE has cautioned that unwarranted panic might occur because of believing, sharing, or forwarding unverified messages. When students must be calm and focused in order to get ready, rumours may as well ruin preparation and cause anxiety.The Board has asked parents, students, and the schools to be responsible and not access unverified information on social media sites.

Existence of good security measures

The Board has assured the stakeholders that there is a tight arrangement to see that the examinations are run smoothly, securely, and fairly. According to it, there are strong mechanisms that have been implemented, as had been done in the past years, to uphold the integrity of the exam process.CBSE has also made the statement that if any misinformation is spread or the examination process is disrupted, then it will be addressed most sternly as per relevant rules and regulations.

Relied on official sources only

In order to get genuine updates and clarifications about the Class X and Class XII board exams, CBSE has recommended that the concerned parties only use official communication channels:The official site: https://www.cbse.gov.in

The official site of the Board provides contact information.

Gold prices eased by Rs 589 to Rs 1.55 lakh per 10 grams in the futures trade on Monday, tracking weakness in international markets.On the Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX), gold contracts for April delivery fell Rs 589, or 0.38 per cent, to Rs 1,55,306 per 10 grams in a business turnover of 7,695 lots.In global markets, Comex gold futures for the April contract slipped USD 24.31, or 0.48 per cent, to USD 5,021.99 per ounce in New York.“Gold slipped to trade around USD 5,000 per ounce after rising more than 2 per cent in the previous session on weaker-than-expected US Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation data,” Jigar Trivedi, Senior Research Analyst at IndusInd Securities, said.Manav Modi, Analyst, Commodities at Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd, said that geopolitical risks remain elevated after reports that Washington deployed the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford to the Middle East amid stalled Iran nuclear talks, lending safe-haven support to gold.He added that the markets are weighing the potential inflationary impact of renewed tariff threats from US President Donald Trump, along with concerns over the Federal Reserve’s future policy path.“Gold is trading at a discount for the first time in nearly a month even as Chinese demand remains robust, with Shanghai warehouse stocks crossing 100 tonnes,” Modi said, adding that this underscores firm physical buying interest.US markets remained closed due to the President’s Day holiday, while Chinese markets are shut for a week for the Lunar New Year holidays. Investors are now looking ahead to the upcoming Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index data and the minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting for further direction.Here is how much gold costs in your city today:

Gold prices in Delhi

Gold prices in Delhi are Rs 15,659 per gram for 24K, Rs 14,355 per gram for 22K, and Rs 11,748 per gram for 18K gold. Compared to yesterday, 24K gold is down Rs 131, 22K gold has fallen Rs 120, and 18K gold is lower by Rs 98.

Gold prices in Ahmedabad

In Ahmedabad, 24K gold is priced at Rs 15,649 per gram. The 22K rate stands at Rs 14,345, while 18K gold costs Rs 11,738 per gram. Prices of 24K, 22K and 18K gold have declined by Rs 131, Rs 120 and Rs 98 respectively.

Gold prices in Bangalore

Gold in Bangalore is retailing at Rs 15,644 per gram for 24K. The 22K rate is Rs 14,340 per gram and 18K gold is priced at Rs 11,733. All three categories have declined, with 24K down Rs 131, 22K down Rs 120 and 18K down Rs 98.

Gold prices in Chennai

In Chennai, 24K gold is trading at Rs 15,753 per gram. The 22K rate is Rs 14,440, while 18K gold stands at Rs 12,350 per gram. Compared to the previous day, 24K gold is down Rs 131, 22K is lower by Rs 120 and 18K has fallen Rs 100.

Gold prices in Hyderabad

Gold prices in Hyderabad are Rs 15,644 per gram for 24K, Rs 14,340 for 22K and Rs 11,733 for 18K gold. The rates have declined by Rs 131, Rs 120 and Rs 98 respectively.

Gold prices in Jaipur

In Jaipur, 24K gold is priced at Rs 15,644 per gram. The 22K variant costs Rs 14,340, while 18K gold is selling at Rs 11,733 per gram. All categories have registered declines of Rs 131, Rs 120 and Rs 98 respectively.

Gold prices in Mumbai

Gold in Mumbai is priced at Rs 15,644 per gram for 24K. The 22K rate stands at Rs 14,340 per gram and 18K gold is priced at Rs 11,733. Compared to yesterday, prices are down Rs 131 for 24K, Rs 120 for 22K and Rs 98 for 18K.

Gold prices in Kolkata

In Kolkata, 24K gold is selling at Rs 15,644 per gram. The 22K rate is Rs 14,340 and 18K gold costs Rs 11,733 per gram. Prices have declined by Rs 131, Rs 120 and Rs 98 respectively.

Gold prices in Kanpur

Gold prices in Kanpur are Rs 15,659 per gram for 24K, Rs 14,355 for 22K and Rs 11,748 for 18K gold. Compared to the previous day, 24K gold is down Rs 131, 22K gold has fallen Rs 120 and 18K gold is lower by Rs 98.

NEW DELHI: Assam Congress MP and former state unit chief Bhupen Borah on Monday withdrew his resignation after holding long discussions with the party’s central leadership, including Rahul Gandhi. Congress’s Assam in-charge Bhanwar Jitendra Singh, sharing about the resignation withdrawal by the Congress leader said that internal differences had been resolved through dialogue.Congress’s Assam in-charge Bhanwar Jitendra Singh said the party leadership did not accept Borah’s resignation and reaffirmed his importance within the organisation. He said, “I thank Bhupen Borah for taking back his resignation. Senior Congress leader Bhupen Borah is an important member of the Congress family. He had sent his resignation to our party’s national president.”“Sometimes differences of opinion arise, but these have been resolved through discussions,” Singh told reporters, adding that Borah has been associated with the party for nearly three decades.

Borah had earlier in the day submitted his resignation to the Congress high command, citing dissatisfaction over being “ignored” within the state unit and not receiving due recognition.Speaking to reporters after sending his resignation letter, he said the decision was not personal but stemmed from concerns about the party’s future. He said, “I sent my resignation to the Congress High Command at 8 am this morning and explained in detail why I was compelled to take this stand. This is not a personal decision. I have given 32 years to the party and joined it in 1994.”He also detailed the reasons behind his decision in his communication to the leadership.“This principle is not merely personal; it is driven by concern for the party’s future. That is why I conveyed everything in detail to the Congress High Command,” he said.Following the meeting with senior leaders, the party persuaded Borah to continue, signalling an effort to maintain unity ahead of the upcoming Assam Assembly elections.Borah served as president of the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee from 2021 to 2025 before being replaced by Gaurav Gogoi last year. A two-time legislator, he clarified earlier that his resignation was not intended as a departure from politics and said he had not received any offer from other political parties.The development comes as the Congress prepares for the Assam Assembly elections, expected to be held in March–April, where it is likely to contest in alliance with other opposition parties.In the 126-member Assembly, the BJP currently holds 64 seats, with allies AGP, UPPL and BPF holding nine, seven and three seats respectively. In the opposition ranks, the Congress has 26 MLAs, followed by AIUDF with 15 and CPI(M) with one, along with an Independent legislator.

Rajpal Yadav who was in custody at Tihar jail after being asked to surrender in several cheque bounce cases has finally got an interim bail from the Delhi High Court. The actor had filed a plea for bail citing a family wedding and a hearing took place last week on Thursday which was further adjourned to Monday, February 16. The court had given the actor time till 3pm to deposit Rs 1.5 crore if he wants bail, and he managed to do so. As per the latest update, the court has granted interim suspension of sentence to actor Rajpal Yadav in connection with the cheque bounce case against him.While granting relief, the court took note that Rs 1.5 crore had already been deposited into the respondent’s bank account. Considering this submission, the bench ordered that the sentence be suspended subject to certain conditions. Yadav has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh along with one surety of an equivalent amount. As a result of the interim relief, the actor will remain out of custody until March 18, the date fixed for the next hearing in the matter.Yadav is yet to comment on the matter. Meanwhile, in an exclusive chat with Bombay Times, his wife had thanked the industry for all the support. Speaking about the support he has been receiving from the industry, Radha added, “Our whole family is together at this time. We are very grateful for the support and love he is receiving from his fans and the film fraternity.”There have been rumours that multiple actors such as Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar, Ajay Devgn, and others have paid off the actors debt, Radha addressed the speculations, and clarified, “I can’t take any specific names right now, but I would just want to say many people from the industry have stepped in to support. I’m not able to divulge names and figures at this stage. We are very hopeful that he will be out soon. That’s all I can say now. Once Rajpalji is out, he will be able speak to you and the media and give further clarity on the matter.”

Popular radio show host David Greene has sued Google, alleging the tech giant of ‘stealing’ his voice for its NotebookLM tool, which uses AI to create on-demand podcasts. The lawsuit, filed in Santa Clara County alleges that Google cloned Greene’s voice and distinctive broadcasting style without permission or compensation. Greene argues that Google’s NotebookLM T tool voice’s rhythm, intonation, and even his characteristic verbal tics are so similar that even his friends, colleagues, and listeners assumed he’d licensed his voice to Google.“So… I’m probably the 148th person to ask this, but did you license your voice to Google? It sounds very much like you!,” a former co-worker asked David Greene in a fall 2024 email, a Washington Post report says.

What David Greene says

“I was, like, completely freaked out,” Greene told the publication, adding “It’s this eerie moment where you feel like you’re listening to yourself.” Greene said the AI voice sounds very similar to his own, and that the impact goes beyond losing a chance to make money from his best-known asset. “My voice is, like, the most important part of who I am,” Greene reportedly said. In the lawsuit, Greene’s lawyer argues that the recordings make the resemblance clear. “We have faith in the court and encourage people to listen to the example audio themselves,” said Joshua Michelangelo Stein, a partner at the firm Boies Schiller Flexner.

Google responds to the lawsuit

Google responded denying the allegations. Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Washington Post: “These allegations are baseless. The sound of the male voice in NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews is based on a paid professional actor Google hired.”The Washington Post reported, “The lawsuit is the latest to pit the rights of individual human creators against the rights of a burgeoning AI industry that promises to transform the economy by enabling the on-demand generation of stunningly lifelike speech, prose, images, and video. Behind the artificial voices found in tools like NotebookLM are language models trained on vast libraries of real-life human text and speech. The humans used to train these models are unaware that their words and voices will be used by AI, raising serious questions about copyright and ownership.”.

NEW DELHI: Bharat Electronics Limited on Monday approved signing a Joint Venture Agreement with Safran Electronics & Defence, France, for the HAMMER weapon system project, formalising a 50:50 equity partnership between the two firms.The approval was granted at BEL’s board meeting, the company said in a stock exchange filing. The operationalisation of the joint venture will be subject to regulatory and administrative approvals in both India and France.Under the agreement, BEL and Safran will incorporate a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013. The registered office and principal place of business will be located in Pune or any other mutually agreed location.The joint venture will operate a “Center of Excellence” to act as a technology and teaming partner for the manufacturing, supply, maintenance and repair of the Guidance Kit of the HAMMER weapon system. The primary end users will be the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, while other Indian users may be included based on mutual agreement.The company will be incorporated with an initial authorised share capital of Rs 1,00,000, comprising 1,000 equity shares of Rs 100 each. This may be increased up to Rs 10,00,00,000 or any other amount depending on business requirements.

The board of the joint venture will consist of four directors, with two nominated by BEL and two by Safran. The Chairman will be appointed by the nominees and will not have a casting vote.Also read – ‘Hammer’: Used in Op Sindoor to crush Pakistan; India inks pact with France for homegrown hellfire – why the deal mattersThe move is expected to strengthen domestic technological capabilities in the production and lifecycle support of critical components of the HAMMER system, aligning with India’s push for greater indigenisation in defence manufacturing.

HAMMER Operation Sindoor: Precision strikes with flexibility and control

The Indian Air Force deployed HAMMER precision-guided weapons during Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, as part of calibrated cross-border strikes against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.Operation Sindoor was launched in retaliation for the Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22 that killed 26 civilians. Nine sites were struck, including Jaish-e-Mohammed’s base in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s hub in Muridke.Weapon selection was central to the operation. The IAF used a layered mix of SCALP cruise missiles, HAMMER precision-guided bombs and loitering munitions. Within this mix, HAMMER was used where flexibility and adaptability were essential.

Its modular design and multiple guidance options enabled tailored strikes based on target characteristics and real-time assessments. The system allowed stand-off engagement without requiring aircraft to fly directly over heavily defended areas. Its off-axis launch capability reduced exposure to air defence networks, particularly near populated and sensitive military zones.By pairing HAMMER with SCALP, the IAF demonstrated a layered strike doctrine, with SCALP targeting deep and hardened objectives and HAMMER engaging medium-range sites requiring precision and manoeuvrability.

What exactly is HAMMER and how it works in combat

HAMMER, short for Highly Agile Modular Munition Extended Range, officially designated AASM from the French Armement Air-Sol Modulaire, is a precision-guided air-to-ground stand-off weapon designed to bridge the gap between conventional bombs and cruise missiles.Despite often being described as a missile, HAMMER is fundamentally a guided bomb system. It consists of a standard unguided bomb fitted with modular guidance and propulsion kits, converting it into a high-precision strike weapon.The system has two core components. The first is a nose-mounted guidance section that determines navigation and targeting. Depending on mission needs, it can combine inertial navigation and GPS for all-weather strikes, infrared imaging for fixed targets, or laser guidance for engaging moving targets.

The second is a tail-mounted range extension kit with a solid-fuel rocket booster and manoeuvrable winglets. After release, the booster increases stand-off range while the winglets allow sharp turns and off-axis attacks. This enables aircraft to strike accurately while remaining outside heavily defended airspace.HAMMER kits can be attached to bombs weighing 125 kg, 250 kg, 500 kg and 1,000 kg, including Mark 80 series bombs. This scalability allows use against a spectrum of targets, from lightly protected structures to hardened bunkers.In operational settings, HAMMER offers modularity, manoeuvrability and precision, making it suited to modern air operations where flexibility and controlled escalation are key.

The Allahabad high court has ruled that a person’s caste, assigned at birth, does not change even if they convert to another religion or marry into a different community.The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging an Aligarh special court’s order summoning nine accused to face trial under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.The case stems from a criminal complaint filed by a woman in an Aligarh SC/ST court, in which she alleged that the accused assaulted her and used casteist slurs during a dispute.After the special judge summoned all nine accused for offences under the SC/ST Act, they approached the Allahabad high court, arguing that the complainant could not invoke the act as she had married a man from a different caste. The appellants contended that her Scheduled Caste status had ceased to exist following her inter-caste marriage.Rejecting the argument, the judge held that marriage does not alter a person’s caste identity. The court noted that while a person may change religion, caste remains unchanged despite conversion or marriage.The judgment was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar-X in Criminal Appeal No. 6081 of 2022, arising from proceedings before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh.Background of the caseThe appeal was filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against an order dated July 27, 2022, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh . The appellants, Dinesh and eight others, were summoned to face trial in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022. The charges included offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), and 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act .The complaint alleged that the informant was assaulted and abused by the appellants, and that casteist slurs were used during the altercation. The complainant and two others reportedly sustained injuries .The appellants’ argumentsCounsel for the appellants advanced two primary arguments before the High Court.First, they contended that the complaint was a retaliatory measure. According to them, an earlier First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged by the appellants against the informant and her family members in Case Crime No. 442 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504, and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh . This FIR was filed on September 7, 2021, and the appellants claimed that members of their family had also sustained injuries, with injury reports on record . They argued that the present complaint was filed as a “counterblast” to this earlier FIR.Second, the appellants challenged the applicability of the SC/ST Act itself. They asserted that the informant was originally a resident of West Bengal and belonged to the SC/ST community there. However, she had married a person belonging to the Jat community. According to the appellants, by marrying outside her caste, she had lost her original caste status and could no longer claim protection under the SC/ST Act .They argued that a woman, upon marrying a man from another caste, adopts the caste of her husband and thereby loses the caste she held by birth. On this basis, they claimed that the summoning order for offences under the SC/ST Act was legally unsustainable .The state’s responseThe State, represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, and counsel for the informant opposed the appeal. They submitted that the alleged incidents described in the complaint and the earlier FIR occurred on the same date and were essentially part of a single episode .The informant’s complaint alleged that she was assaulted and subjected to caste-based abuse during the altercation. The fact that three individuals, including the informant, were injured in the incident was also placed before the Court . In light of these circumstances, the State argued that the mere existence of a cross-case did not render the complaint false or malicious.Accordingly, the respondents maintained that the appeal lacked merit and deserved dismissal .The high court’s analysisAfter hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the High Court addressed the two central issues: the effect of a cross-case and the question of caste identity after marriage.Cross-case and rival versionsThe court observed that the Trial Court had summoned the appellants after considering the statements of the informant and her witnesses, as well as the injury reports . The High Court held that the existence of a cross-case does not, by itself, justify discarding a complaint filed by the opposite party on a rival version of events .In criminal law, cross-cases arising from the same incident are not uncommon. They often reflect competing narratives of a single altercation. The Court emphasized that such circumstances must be evaluated through trial, not dismissed at the threshold merely because a counter-complaint exists.Therefore, the high court found no illegality in the trial court’s decision to summon the appellants for the alleged offences .Marriage and caste identityOn the second issue—the alleged loss of caste upon marriage—the Court delivered a clear and categorical ruling. It rejected the appellants’ contention as having “no force” .The Court reasoned that although a person may change religion, caste remains the same despite conversion to another religion . By extension, marriage does not change a person’s caste. Thus, the argument that the informant had lost her SC/ST status by marrying a man from the Jat community was legally untenable.This interpretation underscores a fundamental principle: caste, as understood in Indian law, is determined by birth and does not automatically shift due to marriage. Consequently, the informant retained her caste identity for the purposes of invoking protections under the SC/ST Act.Legal significanceThe ruling reinforces two important principles in criminal and constitutional jurisprudence.First, it affirms that courts must not prematurely reject complaints simply because they are filed in the context of cross-litigation. Where there are rival versions of an incident, it is the function of the trial process to evaluate evidence and determine credibility.Second, and more significantly, the judgment clarifies the legal position regarding caste identity after marriage. By holding that marriage does not alter caste status, the Court ensures that protections under the SC/ST Act cannot be circumvented by invoking marital status.The SC/ST Act is designed to prevent atrocities and caste-based discrimination against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Allowing caste identity to be nullified by marriage could create a loophole, undermining the protective framework of the statute.The final orderHaving found no merit in the appellants’ arguments, the High Court dismissed the appeal . The summoning order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, therefore remains in force, and the appellants will face trial on the charges framed against them.The judgment was delivered on February 10, 2026 .The high court’s decision provides a clear affirmation of two doctrinal points: the independence of cross-cases in criminal proceedings and the continuity of caste identity despite inter-caste marriage.For graduate students studying constitutional law, criminal procedure, or social justice legislation, the ruling offers a concise but instructive example of how courts interpret protective statutes such as the SC/ST Act. It illustrates the judiciary’s role in balancing procedural fairness with the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.By rejecting the argument that caste can be extinguished through marriage, the Court has reinforced the statutory protections available to historically marginalized communities, ensuring that legal safeguards remain tied to birth-based identity rather than marital affiliation.

Key takeaways

Marriage does not change caste identityThe Court clearly held that a woman does not lose her caste status upon marrying a person from another caste. Caste, for legal purposes, is determined by birth and does not automatically shift due to marriage.SC/ST Act protections continue after inter-caste marriageBecause caste identity remains intact, individuals from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes retain protection under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act even if they marry outside their caste.Cross-cases do not nullify complaintsThe existence of a prior FIR or cross-case does not invalidate a subsequent complaint based on a rival version of the same incident. Courts must assess both cases on their own merits during trial.Summoning orders require prima facie satisfaction, not final proofThe High Court upheld the Trial Court’s summoning order, emphasizing that at the preliminary stage, courts only need to be satisfied that there is sufficient material (such as statements and injury reports) to proceed to trial.Protective legislation cannot be circumvented by technical argumentsThe judgment reinforces that the purpose of the SC/ST Act—to prevent caste-based abuse and discrimination—cannot be defeated by arguments that attempt to redefine caste identity through marital status.

Why this matters

Clarifies the legal status of caste after marriageThe ruling settles a recurring legal question: whether inter-caste marriage alters caste identity for the purposes of statutory protections. By affirming that caste is determined by birth and does not change upon marriage, the Court provides doctrinal clarity that prevents ambiguity in future litigation under the SC/ST Act.Strengthens the integrity of the SC/ST ActThe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is designed as a protective statute addressing historical discrimination and caste-based violence. If caste identity could be altered or “lost” through marriage, it would create a loophole capable of weakening the Act’s enforcement. The judgment closes that interpretive gap.Prevents strategic dilution of atrocity chargesThe decision signals that accused persons cannot avoid prosecution under the SC/ST Act by arguing that a complainant’s marital status negates her caste identity. This reduces the possibility of technical defenses being used to bypass substantive allegations of caste-based abuse.Reaffirms trial as the proper forum for rival narrativesBy holding that the existence of a cross-case does not automatically invalidate a complaint, the Court underscores a core principle of criminal procedure: factual disputes must be tested at trial. This reinforces procedural fairness and discourages premature dismissal of complaints.Implications for gender and social identityThe ruling carries broader sociological implications. It implicitly rejects the notion that a woman’s identity is subsumed by her husband’s caste upon marriage. In doing so, it aligns with constitutional values of individual identity and equality, rather than patriarchal assumptions embedded in customary practices.Academic and policy relevanceFor graduate students studying constitutional law, criminal law, or social justice policy, the case offers a compact illustration of how courts interpret identity-based protections within a statutory framework. It demonstrates how judicial reasoning can shape the operational scope of anti-discrimination legislation without expanding beyond the statute’s text.

NEW DELHI: Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar on Sunday stoked a fresh controversy after lauding Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and expressing hope for the return of the Left government in the upcoming assembly elections.This comes as the Congress seeks a return to power in Kerala in the polls scheduled for May this year.Speaking at an international seminar titled “Vision 2031: Development and Democracy”, Aiyar asked Vijayan to “pick up the baton that the Congress has dropped.”He added that it may appear ironic that the state which has made the most commendable progress towards that goal is Kerala, ruled by a “Marxist-Leninist party”.“I do not know whether this is a compliment or an insult, but I deeply regret the absence of my party colleagues on this occasion, which is a state occasion and therefore a national occasion. While Kerala is the first state in panchayati raj in practice, it ranks only second in law,” Aiyar said.“So, in the presence of the chief minister, who I am confident will continue in office, I renew my plea — to reinforce Kerala as the best panchayati raj state in the country. State laws should be amended based on practical experience, Thomas Isaac’s insights, the five-volume report I chaired, and the note on district planning by V K Ramachandran circulated by the Planning Commission when it truly supported panchayati raj,” he added.“Therefore, I must fall at your feet, Chief Minister Vijayan, and request you to pick up the baton that the Congress has dropped. Thank you, and may Kerala prosper,” he further said.Vijayan described Aiyar’s remarks as “charismatic words” that resonated with the current context.In a social media post about the Vision 2031 International Conference, he said Aiyar’s observations reflected the contemporary scenario and reaffirmed his government’s commitment to strengthening grassroots democracy.“We stand united in the belief that democracy flourishes only when power resides with the people. We will continue to strengthen our local bodies as the heartbeat of growth,” the Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader said.‘No connection whatsoever with the Congress’Meanwhile, Aiyar’s remarks did not go down well with the Congress leadership.Congress national spokesperson Pawan Khera sought to distance the party from Aiyar’s comments, saying he has had no connection whatsoever with the Congress for the past few years.In a post on X, Khera said Aiyar “speaks and writes purely in his personal capacity”.“Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar has had no connection whatsoever with the Congress for the past few years. He speaks and writes purely in his personal capacity,” Khera said.Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh also rubbished Aiyar’s remarks and said that the United Democratic Front (UDF) is set to return to power in Kerala.“Let there be no doubt. The people of Kerala will bring the UDF back for more responsible and responsive governance. They also know the LDF and BJP are covert partners,” he said.