CM meets Sitharaman, seeks pro-growth tax devolution
The state's share in tax devolution declined from 4.713 per cent to 3.647 per cent -- a reduction of over 23 per cent. Karnataka was also denied Rs 11,495 crore in special grants, resulting in a total loss of Rs 80,000 crore during the award period.
The chief minister attributed this decline primarily to the over-reliance on the income-distance criterion, which received 45 per cent weightage under the 15th Finance Commission. Karnataka has requested the 16th Finance Commission to reduce the weightage for income-distance by 20 percentage points and reallocate it to fiscal contribution -- the state's share in national GDP.
The state has also proposed discontinuing Revenue Deficit Grants in their current format, arguing they contradict fiscal discipline principles outlined in the FRBM framework. Instead, Karnataka suggested redistributing the same amount -- 1.92 per cent of Gross Union Receipts under the 15th Finance Commission -- among all states using the horizontal devolution formula.
Siddaramaiah highlighted the developmental challenges facing Bengaluru, Kalyana Karnataka and Malenadu regions, emphasising that fair and pro-growth devolution would accelerate the state's growth trajectory.
The chief minister clarified that Karnataka's proposals were not a request for special treatment but would improve overall national resource mobilisation and foster cooperative and competitive
federalism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Amit Shah tables 3 bills in Lok Sabha, sent to JPC amid chaos
Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in the Lok Sabha three contentious bills that bar any minister, chief minister or prime minister from holding the position after getting arrested, amid a storm of Opposition protests and sloganeering that even saw the draft legislation torn up and pieces of paper flung at the minister. Home Minister Amit Shah speaks in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament on Wednesday(Sansad TV) Tempers flared, copies of the bills were torn and members of the ruling and opposition coalitions came face-to-face and jostled in the Lower House, which eventually sent the three bills to a joint parliamentary committee, comprising 21 members of the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. Some Opposition members charged towards the Well of the House and even headed towards Shah who was introducing the bill around 2pm, forcing a brief adjournment and admonishment from speaker Om Birla. When the House was reconvened at 3pm, 15 marshals were brought inside the House and the home minister introduced the bills from the fourth row, instead of the first, guarded by marshals. 'On one hand, PM Narendra Modi has introduced a constitutional amendment to bring himself into the ambit of law. On the other hand, under the leadership of Congress, the entire opposition has opposed it in order to remain above the law, run governments from jail, and cling to power,' Shah posted on X. The three bills – the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill – propose that a sitting minister, chief minister or even the Prime Minister can lose their position within a month if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days over an offence that carries a jail term of five years or more. Shah rose to introduce the three bills – which will require a two-thirds majority in the House to become a law – shortly after 2pm. Almost immediately, at least five opposition MPs opposed it, saying the members were not given time to read the bill, and alleged that the bill will empower agencies to settle political rivalry, target opposition parties and undermine constitutional safeguards. Congress leader KC Venugopal, who also tore a copy of the bill, asked the home minister if he had resigned after being arrested when he was the state home minister in Gujarat. 'The people in BJP are saying that this bill will bring back morality in politics. I want to ask the home minister. He had been arrested. Whether he took the morality of resigning…This bill is to threaten people like Nitish Kumar (Bihar chief minister) and N Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh CM).' An irate Shah responded immediately. 'When the allegations were levelled and before the arrest, I resigned on moral grounds. Until the courts passed an order, I did not accept any constitutional post. I want to assure that this bill will ensure morality. We should not have a situation where there are grave allegations and yet the person continues to hold the post,' he said. Trinamool Congress's Trinamool's Kalyan Banerjee, who was standing in front of Shah, turned around and tried to use the minister's microphone to oppose the bill. Some other TMC members hurled papers in front of the minister. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, who was seated on the second row, rushed to stand between the protestors and Shah. Minister of state Ravneet Singh Bittu also came running down. The bill was finally introduced at 3.02pm after a voice vote and sent to a JPC by 3.05pm after another voice vote. Opposition MPs, including All India Majlis-e- Ittehadul Muslimeen's Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress's Manish Tewari and Venugopal, and Revolutionary Socialist Party's NK Premachandran, spoke against the introduction, terming the proposed law against the Constitution and federalism. Demanding that Shah withdraw the bills, Tewari said they were 'squarely destructive' of the basic structure of the Constitution and turned the fundamental principle of the rule of law that a person is innocent till proven guilty on its head. The bills gave due procedure a go-by and made an investigating officer the 'boss of the Prime Minister of India', he said. Later in the evening, the home minister defended the bills. 'On account of the Modi government's commitment to restoring moral standards in politics and in view of the public resentment towards the menace, today with the Lok Sabha speaker's permission, I tabled constitutional amendment bills that will prevent people from holding important constitutional positions like Prime Minister, chief minister, or Union or state minister while in jail,' Shah later posted on X. He also attacked the Congress. 'I want to remind Congress that I had resigned even before being arrested. I did not hold any constitutional position, even after being released on bail, until the court fully acquitted me…The BJP and the NDA have always stood for moral values. On the other hand, the Congress party continues to carry forward the unethical tradition started by Smt. Indira Gandhi,' he said. The three bills propose an entirely new legal framework that will be applicable to ministers and CMs in states and Union territories such as Jammu & Kashmir, and Union ministers and the PM at the Centre. To be sure, the bills suggest that a dismissed minister, CM or PM can be appointed again after their release from custody. There is currently no provision to remove a sitting minister if they are accused of a crime. Only a Member of Parliament or legislative assembly can lose their seat (and if they're a minister, effectively their ministership) if they are convicted for a crime that carries a punishment of two years imprisonment or more. Owaisi said the bill violated the principle of separation of powers, undermined the elected government and gave executive agencies a free run to become a judge, jury and executioner based on flimsy allegations. 'Only when an offence is proved without reasonable doubt then only you can leave the post and membership. But here a mere accusation, allegation has the punishment of losing a minister post…This amendment will leave the CM and ministers at the mercy of the agencies,' he said.
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Court dismisses plea against BJP MLA's victory in Mumbai's Sion-Koliwada seat
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against BJP legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan, challenging his victory from the 179 Sion-Koliwada Assembly constituency in Milind N Jadhav rejected the petition filed by Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav, terming it "vague and generic" and lacking the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, who secured 65,534 votes against Selvan's winning tally of 73,429, had sought to set aside the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. He alleged that Selvan suppressed key financial information in his nomination affidavit, including a Rs 90 lakh housing loan, an arbitral award of over Rs 2.72 crore in favour of Central Railways, and other liabilities flagged in CRIF and CIBIL reports. Representing Selvan, senior advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar argued that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by documentary evidence. He stated that the loan pertained to a flat purchased in Selvan's daughter's name and was serviced solely by her, eliminating the need for disclosure. On the arbitral award, Tulzapurkar noted that its execution had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore no enforceable liability further contended that the petitioner had failed to present crucial documents at the outset and had attempted to improve the case at a later stage, undermining the credibility of the counsel, Premlal Krishnan, maintained that the omissions were deliberate and materially affected the election outcome by depriving voters of complete information on Selvan's financial Justice Jadhav ruled that the petition failed to meet the statutory requirement under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, which mandates a clear and concise statement of material facts. 'Yadav has merely alleged general and vague violations by Selvan without specifying any details whatsoever,' the court decision aligns with Justice Jadhav's earlier criticism in March this year regarding poorly drafted election petitions, where he remarked on the declining standards in legal pleadings submitted in such that Yadav failed to comply with the mandatory legal provisions, the court dismissed the petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for invalidating an election.- EndsMust Watch
