&w=3840&q=100)
Nepal govt announces budget of nearly Rs 2,000 billion for 2025-26
Nepal's Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel on Thursday unveiled a budget of approximately NPR 1,964 billion for the upcoming fiscal year 2025-26.
Paudel allocated NPR 730 million in subsidised loans to support startups in the budget, which was presented during the joint session of the Parliament. The loan scheme will be offered at a concessional interest rate of just 3 per cent and is aimed at encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly among the Gen-Z people (those born between 1997 and 2012).
For the social security allowance, the government has allocated NPR 109 billion in the budget, which will take effect from mid-July. Similarly, NPR 10 billion has been set aside for health insurance.
Additionally, to attract international students, free visas will be offered as part of a scheme outlined in the budget to foreign students wishing to pursue higher studies in Nepal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said. The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality. HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes. In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform. The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters. In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. 'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added. The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee. 'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added. Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said. In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias. Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Justice Kant: Indian judiciary shaped democracy's moral spine
NEW DELHI: Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping the democracy's moral spine by interpreting the Constitution's textual commands in a way that gave vibrancy and dynamism to the country's governance structure, said Justice Surya Kant, who will become the 53rd Chief Justice of India in Nov. Speaking to legal scholars and students in Seattle (US), he said in Kesavananda Bharti case, SC established the 'basic structure doctrine', which elucidated that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental identity. Justice Kant said, "When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy - they deepen it." While judiciary's proactive stance has often filled legislative or executive voids in advancing rights and justice, it has also, at times, drawn criticism for encroaching upon policy domains traditionally reserved for elected branches of govt, he said. "This tension invites a deeper inquiry into the legitimacy and limits of judicial intervention in a constitutional democracy," he added. He said principles such as the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Judicial Review were deemed unamendable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo This doctrine, unprecedented at the time, was rooted not in textual literalism, but in an ethical reading of democratic continuity, he said. He juxtaposed the Bharti judgment with the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, in which during emergency SC had acquiesced to the govt's draconian diktat "no right available to citizens", and said it was only following the Maneka Gandhi case, immediately after the end of Emergency, that the true expansion of rights happened through SC's interpretative exercises. "In this period, SC has reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and underscored that its foundational values, especially those relating to life and liberty, are inviolable and beyond compromise," Justice Kant said. Explaining judicial independence, he said it encompasses the ability to have intellectual and moral independence, that stretches beyond mere institutional autonomy. "The underlying purpose of the independence of the judiciary is that judges must be able to decide a dispute before them according to law, uninfluenced by any other factor," he said, addingit is ingrained in the system ," he said.
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- The Hindu
District Collectors to have wide powers in registering new Waqf properties and deciding on Waqf claims on government properties
The District Collectors will have a crucial role in registering new Waqf properties and looking into complaints of government properties being identified or declared as Waqf, according to the draft Waqf rules. The Union government has sought the views of the State governments and the State Waqf Boards on the draft rules for the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which was passed by Parliament in April. The Rules will come into force once they are notified in the Gazette of India. The Collector shall inquire into the genuineness and validity of the application for registering a new Waqf in accordance with the revenue laws and confirm that the Waqif (the one who is making the Waqf) is a lawful owner of the property and competent to dedicate it as a Waqf. The Collector will also ascertain that the proposed property is not a government property, a protected monument or protected area under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, and does not belong to Scheduled Tribes, according to the draft rules. Kerala had been keenly awaiting the introduction of the Rules as Kiran Rijiju, the Union Minister for Minority Affairs, had stated earlier this year that the enactment of the Rules would help the Munambam residents in their legal fight for restoring the revenue rights of their holdings. The residents had opposed the decision of the Kerala Waqf Board in notifying the land as a Waqf property. Two petitions challenging the decision of the Board are pending before the Waqf Tribunal. The residents, who claimed that they had purchased the holding from Farook College, Kozhikode, have been protesting for 240 days. Portal, database The 15-point Rules also speak about setting up a portal and a database for filing the details of Waqf and registration of new Waqf. There shall be provisions for real-time monitoring of registration of new Waqf and filing the details of the Waqf, court cases and dispute resolution and resources management. The District Collector can order an inquiry when it comes to the notice of the official that any government property has been identified or declared as a Waqf. The designated officer shall hear all persons concerned or any person having any interest in the property, including the government and mutawalli of the Waqf and ask them to submit their claims and counter-claims within a specified period. The inquiry should be completed within one year, say the draft rules. Kerala government has sought time to file its response.
