&w=3840&q=100)
Operation Sindoor: How a Covid-era change to spending rules came in handy
During Covid, the government increased the Contingency Fund limit from ₹500 cr to ₹30,000 cr, a measure that made it easier for the expenditure dept to disburse funds without Parliamentary approval
Subhomoy Bhattacharjee Delhi
Listen to This Article
A significant rule change introduced to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic came handy in the recent military operations against Pakistan, allowing the India government flexibility in drawing funds. The Covid-19 pandemic-drive change means the union government can finance any war with up to ₹30,000 crore without falling foul of spending rules.
The changes were the increase in the corpus of Contingency Fund of India from ₹500 crore to ₹30,000 crore, approved by Parliament in FY22. The Contingency Fund is an imprest mechanism mandated by the Constitution of India that allows the Centre to finance unforeseen expenditures which arise when Parliament
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court denies relief to Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army
Observing that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in a defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army. Rejecting Mr. Gandhi's plea challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on May 29 said the trial court was right to summon the Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 'No doubt over the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam (Supra) and Kaushal Kishore (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case,' the Court noted. The matter pertains to a case filed against Mr. Gandhi by a former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that his statements, given after a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. The remarks were made by Mr. Gandhi during the Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Also read: Rahul Gandhi's surrender barb insult of armed forces, says BJP The plea quoted Mr. Gandhi as allegedly saying, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometers of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know.' The lower court in Lucknow had in February summoned Mr. Gandhi in the case, following which the Congress leader approached the High Court. In his plea, Mr. Gandhi said the complainant was not an officer of the Indian Army and hence the defamation case did not hold water. While rejecting the contention of the Congress leader, the High Court noted that under Section 199(1) the Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an 'aggrieved person' if they are impacted by the offence.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Abhishek to skip MEA meet; TMC slams Centre for refusing spl session
1 2 New Delhi/Kolkata: Trinamool national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee said he will not be attending the external affairs ministry meeting scheduled on Thursday and will instead write to EAM Jaishankar his take on the outcome of the delegation's trip. "We toured five countries in the past 15 days. On Thursday, the EAM will convene a meeting. But I will not be able to attend that. I have some pre-scheduled engagements. I was out of the country for some time. In the meantime, the bye-election for Kaliganj was announced. I have some work in my parliamentary area. I will be busy with that the next few days. I will inform the external affairs ministry about my opinion in writing. Once I inform the ministry, I will speak on that matter," Banerjee told reporters. This came on a day Trinamool MP Derek O'Brien lashed out at the Centre for "running away" from holding a special session of Parliament on Operation Sindoor . O'Brien made the remarks after it was announced that the monsoon session of Parliament would be held from July 21 to Aug 12. "All important matters" can be discussed in the session, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said, adding that every Parliament session was a "special session". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch xu hướng AUD/USD? IC Markets Đăng ký Undo "Parliamentophobia (noun) - My word for the acute condition of a (Modi) govt who have a morbid fear of facing Parliament. Running away from a special session," O'Brien said in a post on X. Speaking to reporters later, he said, "TMC studied the past announcements and usually the session is announced around 19 days ahead of the date of commencement. This time they announced it 47 days ahead. So scared!"
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Teachers' body moves HC against edu dept's rationalisation orders
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh Vidyalayin Shikshak Karmachari Sangh, along with 34 teachers, has challenged two state govt orders dated April 28, 2025, and Aug 2, 2024, in the High Court. The petitioners contend that the govt's ongoing rationalisation process for schools and teachers violates established norms. Counsel Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, representing the matter for the petitioners, said that the move to approach the court came after their protests against the initial orders did not receive a positive response from the govt. The petitioners claim the state govt's orders are arbitrary, illegal, and were issued without proper authority. They highlight a decision by the state council of ministers on July 9, 2024, regarding the rationalisation of schools and teachers. However, they allege that the school education department secretary subsequently issued instructions and guidelines for this process without legal authority. Citing Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the petition argues that all executive actions of a state govt must be expressed in the name of the governor. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo As the challenged orders were not issued in the governor's name, the petitioners assert they are not valid state govt orders and are therefore unenforceable. The petitioners have referred to a judgment by the Chhattisgarh high court in the case of Shitala Diwan Vs. State of C. G. and Ors., decided on January 24, 2017. According to the petitioners, the orders mandate the merger of primary schools with middle schools, and both primary and middle schools with higher secondary schools when co-located. This merger, they argue, would lead to headmasters in primary and middle schools being reassigned as teachers, thereby reducing the number of sanctioned headmaster posts as per the Chhattisgarh School Shiksha Sewa (Shaikshik evam Prashasnik Samvarg) Bharti Tatha Padonnati Niyam, 2019. They contend this makes the orders illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioners also pointed out that the amalgamation would reduce the total number of schools below sanctioned and approved figures, without separate orders for such changes. They added that the new orders would disrupt the Balwadi scheme, which runs alongside primary schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the New Education Policy, 2020, as regular school teachers are engaged in Balwadi activities. They also highlighted that many teachers engaged as Cluster Academy Centre coordinators, overseeing various schools and coordination, have been overlooked in the new orders, leading to conflicts. Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that the rationalisation proposed in the orders is subject-wise, which they argue is futile and contrary to the Niyam, 2019, as the subject-wise posting of teachers was amended and deleted in the 2019 rules. The petitioners have therefore filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders issued by the school education department secretary, deeming them to be without authority of law.
