Maharashtra govt is ‘beggar': Minister Manikrao Kokate adds fuel to fire after ‘rummy' video row; Fadnavis reacts
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and Agriculture minister Manikrao Kokate had allegedly compared farmers to beggars, inviting severe criticism. 'Even a beggar does not take Re 1 in alms, but here we are giving crop insurance for Re 1. Even then, some people try to misuse it,' he had said.
When asked about the remark, Manikrao Kokate compared the Maharashtrian government to 'beggar'. He said, 'The government doesn't give Re 1 to farmers, it takes Re 1 from them. The government is a beggar,' PTI quoted him as saying.
He also said that 5 lakh to 5.3 lakh bogus applications for the Re 1 crop insurance scheme had been received and he rejected them and implemented several corrective steps. The Re 1 crop insurance scheme, launched two years ago, was scrapped a few months back and replaced with the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme.
He also reacted to the alleged video of him playing rummy and warned of legal action against politicians who "defamed" him by sharing his video.
'I don't know how to play online rummy. One needs an OTP, and a bank account needs to be linked to play the game. One can check if my mobile phone is linked to any such game. I was trying to skip a game which popped up on my screen for 10 to 15 seconds,' he said.
When asked about the 'beggar' statement by the Maharashtra government, Devendra Fadnavis said, 'If he has made such a comment, it is inappropriate for ministers to speak in this manner. We have taken corrective measures in the crop insurance scheme as we saw insurance companies benefitting and not farmers.'
'We have taken steps to make an investment of ₹ 5,000 crore every year in the agriculture sector. Maharashtra's economy is good despite challenges,' the chief minister told reporters in Gadchiroli.
NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule in a post on X said calling the state "beggar" was insensitive and 'insult' to all the work the state government has done over the years. 'It is an insult to the hard work of all the chief ministers of the state so far and the people of the state. We will never tolerate this insult,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supriya raises Beed's sarpanch, trader murders in Parliament, demands CBI probe
1 2 Pune: NCP (SP) working president Supriya Sule raised the murders of Massajog sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh and trader Mahadev Munde in Beed district in Parliament on Wednesday and demanded a CBI inquiry. Speaking during the Zero Hour in Parliament, Baramati MP Supriya said, "Beed district has played an important role in the development of Maharashtra and has always been known as a cultured district of the state. BJP senior member, late Gopinath Munde, represented the same district. In the last couple of years, some inhuman incidents have taken place in the district." She said, "Members across party lines in the state protested the murders of Santosh Deshmukh and Mahadev Munde from Beed. It is unfortunate that the home department of the state has not taken strict action in these cases. I request the Union home minister, Amit Shah, to intervene and carry out a CBI inquiry into the brutal murders of Munde and Deshmukh." You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune Mahadev Munde, a local trader, was found murdered with several injuries on his body on October 21, 2023. The Beed police have not managed to resolve the case even after 20 months. Massajog sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh was kidnapped and murdered on December 9, 2024, in the same Beed district. After a public row and political pressure, some arrests were made in the case. Walmik Karad, a close associate of former cabinet minister and NCP MLA Dhananjay Munde, from the same district, was arrested.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Amend biased laws against leprosy patients, SC tells States
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) called upon the States to summon special one-day Assembly sessions or enact an ordinance to amend discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning provisions in various laws against leprosy-affected persons. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Centre and States will do great service to these people by removing discriminatory and demeaning provisions of law. 'States can call upon a special Assembly session or a one-day session instead of waiting for a regular monsoon session or winter session and remove or amend the discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected persons. Where it is not possible to call for a session, an ordinance can be enacted. The State government will be doing great service to them,' the Bench said. The top court was dealing with a batch of petitions, including one initiated in 2010 in which the Bench had earlier directed the States to form a committee to identify provisions in various laws that discriminate against leprosy-affected or cured persons, and take steps for their removal so that they conform to constitutional obligations. Earlier, the court had said it was informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations where such objectionable provisions were still subsisting. The apex court on Wednesday urged the States to take remedial action and said, 'It has been brought to our notice, now let's take remedial action. It is not the court's job but the State government's to do it.' The Bench asked the States, which have not filed the status report, to do so by October and said the National Human Rights Commission, which is also dealing with the issue, may submit a report with due permission from the Chairperson. Additional advocate general Garima Prashad informed the Bench that the Uttar Pradesh government has identified three laws which need to be 'corrected'. Similarly, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan government lawyers submitted that they have filed their status reports and identified a couple of laws and necessary actions have been taken. 'The most serious of all... we don't want to use the word but see how embarrassing it is. Leprosy was one of the grounds for taking divorce,' Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The top court sought a response from the Centre and its status report on the issue. On May 7, the top court noted that these provisions are of wide range illustratively from prohibition against holding elected offices to leprosy being a ground of divorce before the family laws came to be amended by the Parliament, during pendency of these proceedings, through the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from February 21, 2019. The court said it is not sure as to how many States have taken it seriously and earnestly and have taken any effective step to remove the offending and discriminatory expressions from their State laws so as to bring them in conformity with the Constitution. The petitioners, including the Federation of Leprosy Organisation (FOLO) and legal think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, have contended that over a hundred provisions existed, both in Central and in State laws which discriminated against persons affected by leprosy in ways that caused stigmatisation and indignity to them.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
An unsurprising judgment
As the Central government prepares for the next delimitation exercise, which will redraw constituency boundaries based on the first Census after 2026, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were waiting for their Assembly constituencies to be increased, as promised in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. However, a recent Supreme Court judgment has dampened their hopes. According to the 2014 Act, the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies was to be increased from 175 to 225 in Andhra Pradesh and from 119 to 153 in Telangana. However, the delimitation process was stalled as the Census could not be conducted in 2020-21 — first because of the COVID-19 pandemic and later for various other reasons. Telangana has represented the matter to the Central government on many occasions. The State government brought it up during meetings convened by the Union Home Ministry to resolve bilateral issues between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation and also during Southern Zonal Council meetings held under the chairmanship of Union Home Minister Amit Shah from time to time. In a letter addressed to Union Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi in June 2016, the then Telangana Chief Secretary, Rajiv Sharma, recalled the provision made under Section 26 of the Act for delimitation of constituencies in the two States. As the new State of Telangana came into existence with effect from June 2, 2014, Mr. Sharma requested the Home Ministry to place the matter before the Election Commission of India (ECI) for increasing seats in the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 119 to 153 as envisaged in the Act as soon as possible. Telangana's former Chief Electoral Officer, Rajat Kumar, also spoke of the impact of transferring a few mandals of Khammam district in Telangana to neighbouring Andhra Pradesh post-bifurcation. He said that the three constituencies were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Professor K. Purushottam Reddy filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking readjustment of seats in the Assemblies of the two States, pointing to the exercise in Jammu and Kashmir as a precedent. In its judgment last week, the Supreme Court ruled out delimitation of constituencies till the completion and publication of the Census, which is expected to start in 2026. The Court dismissed his petition saying granting relief would be 'contrary to the letter and spirit of constitutional design'. It said that 'Article 170 [which deals with composition of Legislative Assemblies in States] has no application to Union Territories...' It said that the Centre therefore did not discriminate against the electorates of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, nor dampen their legitimate expectations by conducting delimitation of constituencies in the Union Territory of J&K, which was being governed by a distinct constitutional and statutory regime. Justice Surya Kant also explained that there was a specific constitutional embargo in Article 170 stating that delimitation in States was barred until after the completion of the first Census post 2026. Article 170(3) lays down that 'upon the completion of each Census, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority in such a manner as Parliament by law determine'. The next Census, scheduled to begin in 2026, is likely to be conducted in two phases. The official headcount and house-listing process that will precede it are expected to be completed by March 1, 2027. The numbers will take a few years to be finalised and released. The Delimitation Commission can base its work only on the published Census figures and this could further delay the delimitation exercise in the two States. This means that the exercise will start only after the publication of the next Census data. While the verdict has dashed the hopes of the States, it is also unsurprising. No political party, including the Bharat Rashtra Samithi which claims to have played a crucial role in drafting the Act, seems to have paid notice to the wording of the Act. As former MP B. Vinod Kumar rightly said at a press conference, simply adding the words 'notwithstanding Section 170 sub clause 3' in the 2014 Act would have resolved the problem. If that had been done, delimitation in these two States would possibly not have been clubbed with delimitation across the country.
