DMK government has rescued the State from the dark age of AIADMK rule, says Stalin
The Chief Minister said the achievements of his government has not ended. 'This is just the beginning. The State would move like a lion and witness development at the speed of a rocket,' he said after inaugurating an Integrated Bus Terminal (IBT) and Truck Terminal at Panjapur on the Tiruchi-Madurai highway.
The 'Dravidian model' government, Mr.Stalin said, was a model to the country as it was providing an inclusive government benefiting the backward, most backward, scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and others. The State had achieved a 9.69 percent growth rate, the highest among the States in the country. Tamil Nadu continued to increase the area coverage in agriculture and productivity every year. The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of the State was more than twice of other States. The Union government itself had reported that one out of five top ranked higher learning institutions were in the State, Mr. Stalin said and the achievements could not stomach well among the opposition parties.
Taking a dig at the previous AIADMK government, Mr. Stalin said the AIADMK supported three farm laws (The Farmers's Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, when the farmers across the country were up in arm against the Acts during the previous Narendra Modi government at the Centre. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, who was then Chief Minister, went up a step further by insulting the protesting farmers. When the BJP government introduced the Citizenship (Amendment Bill), which was against the interest of Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims, protests erupted in different parts of the country. But, the AIADMK support was the only reason for passage of the Bill in the Parliament, Mr. Stalin said and added that the AIADMK failed to put up strong arguments in the Supreme Court to ensure the rights of the State on the Cauvery water dispute, thereby leading to the farmers ending their lives. Innocent people were killed when the police opened fire at Sathankulam in Thoothukudi. The AIADMK government was the reason for losing our taxation right by agreeing to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) method.
While lauding Minister for Municipal Administration K.N, Nehru for building one of the finest and largest bus terminus, Mr. Stalin said that the swanky terminus had facilities such as escalators, air conditioners and other amenities on a par with airports. It could handle 401 buses at any point in time. It would not only serve the people of Tiruchi but also the State.
State Ministers Nehru, Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, S.S. Sivasankar, S. Regupathy, Siva. V. Meyyanathan, MPs Durai Vaiko, K.N. Arun Nehru, N. Siva, S. Jothimani, Secretary, Municipal Administration D. Karthikeyan, Director, S. Sivarasu, Collector M. Pradeep Kumar, Tiruchi Corporation Commissioner V. Saravanan, Mayor M. Anbazhagan and others participated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Governor RN Ravi says crime on the rise in TN; DMK says his remarks laughable
CHENNAI: In his customary address on the eve of the 79th Independence Day, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi said that there is a need to address the challenges the State faced and mentioned four in particular, including education and social discrimination of the poor and marginalised, alarming rising suicide rates, increasing drug abuse among youth, and surge in sexual crimes against women and children. However, the ruling DMK dismissed his remarks as being in line with what it termed as Ravi's agenda of acting like an agent of the BJP. Highlighting some of the parameters where TN had performed well in contrast to the Governor's statements, DMK's principal secretary and Municipal Administration Minister KN Nehru said even Union Home Minister Amit Shah would laugh if he read Ravi's remarks. He said the Governor's remarks were a result of his frustration over a PhD scholar's refusal to accept the degree from him during the convocation of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University this week and the boycott of the At-Home reception on Independence Day by various parties.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
40 years on, implementation of Assam Accord remains incomplete, claim student leaders, oppn parties
Guwahati, Four decades after the historic Assam Accord was signed to end a six-year-long violent anti-foreigner agitation, its central objective of making the state free of illegal immigrants remains unfulfilled, student leaders and political parties claimed. The issue of illegal immigration is one of the most contentious topics in Assam's political and social spheres. Several elections have been fought over this single issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators, who were initially marked as D-voters if their names were found in the electoral rolls. The Assam Accord was signed on August 15, 1985 after a violent anti-foreigner movement, which claimed the lives of thousands. Among other clauses, the pact stated that names of all foreigners coming to Assam on or after March 25, 1971, would be detected and deleted from electoral rolls with steps taken to deport them. The All Assam Students' Union (AASU), All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) and the central government were the three signatories of the accord. "Successive governments at the Centre and state have failed to implement the pact for 40 years. Illegal foreigners were not detected, deported and their names not deleted from the voter lists," AASU president Utpal Sarma and general secretary Samiran Phukan said in a joint statement. Even the paths through which infiltration took place have not been sealed, and it is an "unpardonable sin" committed by the governments, they added. Unchecked infiltration from Bangladesh threatens the very identity, language, culture and identity of Assamese people, the duo said. They also reiterated demands for the implementation of the Justice (Retd.) Biplab Kumar Sharma Committee's report on Clause 6 of the Accord, which promises constitutional, legislative, and administrative safeguards to protect the Assamese people's identity. The AASU also demanded implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) after due corrections and exclusion of Assam from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) seeks to provide Indian citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis entering India on or before December 31, 2014 from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after five years of residence here. On the implementation of the accord, Minister Atul Bora in a post on X said the state government was doing everything possible to implement it. "We have taken some historic steps to implement the 52 recommendations of Justice (Retd) Biplab Kumar Sharma Committee. In this way, the process is on to execute all clauses of the Accord," he claimed. Leader of the opposition in Assam assembly Debabrata Saikia said the Congress, which was in power in both the Centre and the state during signing of the accord, wholeheartedly wants implementation of all clauses. "The BJP government does not want implementation of the accord, especially as they are strongly against Clause 6. That is why they have introduced CAA, which in a way nullifies the pact," he added. The Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), which was formed as an aftereffect of the anti-CAA movement of 2019-20 comprising mostly ex-AASU members, too slammed the BJP for not doing enough to implement the pact. "The BJP had promised to fully implement the accord before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. However, nothing has been done. Instead, they enacted the CAA and welcomed illegal Bangladeshis coming after 1971," AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi claimed. The Supreme Court on October 17 last year had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. Section 6A was inserted into the Citizenship Act in 1985 as a special provision to deal with the citizenship of people covered under the Assam Accord. A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, had said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration. It had held that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for entry into Assam and granting citizenship is correct. As an outcome of the Assam Accord, the concept of 'D' voters was introduced in the state in 1997 by the EC and prepared a list by including those people who allegedly could not provide evidence in favour of their Indian nationality. It does not exist anywhere in India. Deletion or regularisation of a D-voter is done as per orders of the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) and the subsequent judgements by higher courts. If the legal system declares one as a foreigner, then his or her name is deleted from the electoral rolls. If a D-voter is termed an Indian citizen by the judiciary, then the prefix 'D' is removed from his or her name. In July last year, the Assam government had asked its Border Police wing not to forward the cases of non-Muslim illegal immigrants entering the state before 2015 to FTs and instead advise them to apply for citizenship through CAA. Last month, the Assam government instructed all districts to drop ongoing cases of suspected non-Muslim illegal foreigners entering the state before 2015 from the FTs following implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act .
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Same-sex couple moves court against Income Tax Act
A same-sex couple has challenged a discriminatory tax law in Bombay High Court. The couple argues that the law unfairly taxes gifts between same-sex partners. Heterosexual couples do not face this tax burden. The petitioners claim this violates constitutional rights. The court admitted the petition and will notify the Attorney General. The LGBTQIA+ community is closely watching the case. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads 'The love that dare not speak its name' spoke up against an 'uneven' tax code on Thursday morning at Room number 6 of the Bombay High Court, a theatre of many epic legal battles. A same-sex couple, in a relationship for years, has moved the court, challenging the law that discriminates against them by taxing the gifts received by one partner from the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied for a heterosexual couple, even if the partners are not formally married but are presumed to be in a marriage. They are not taxed simply because they have the possibility of getting to the petitioners, such unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples, who may be in a long, stable relationship, would amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of sex --- a form of discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of the petition, the bench comprising Justice and Firdoush Pooniwalla said the court would send a notice to the Attorney General as it raises a constitutional petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who had practised at the High Court and worked at the UN headquarters, were represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv to curb tax evasion, Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act taxes any money, property, or other assets received without adequate consideration if their value exceeds Rs 50,000. Such receipts or gifts are categorised as 'income from other sources'. However, as per the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), such gifts are not treated as 'income from other sources' and therefore not taxed, when received from 'relatives', which also includes 'spouses' (a term that the statute does not separately explain).Unlike the partners in a heterosexual couple, the petitioners are unable to claim tax benefit as they would not legally qualify as 'spouses' as they belong to the same petition challenges the constitutional validity of the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples in taxing gifts received from one partner to petitioners have prayed before the court, (1) to declare the reference to the term 'spouse' as unconstitutional in so far as it excludes same-sex couples in the same circumstances; (2) to declare that the particular proviso is applicable to same-sex couples in a long, stable relationship; (3) restrain tax authorities from carrying out reassessment and imposing penalties relating to transactions between the petitioners. It may be pointed out that the petitioners neither seek recognition nor presumption of outcome of the proceedings, according to legal circles, would be closely followed by the LGBTQIA+ community as it could have a bearing on investments, property ownerships, and some legal victories, community members, often voicing the discriminations they encounter, believe they still have a long way to go in preserving their dignity and freedom. While in 2018, the apex court had decriminalised same-sex relationship by scrapping a colonial era law, in 2023, a five-member Supreme Court bench declined to recognise LGBTQIA+ persons' right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said For such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the Court.'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same sex couples,' said Singh.
