Rajiv Yuva Vikasam beneficiaries to get sanction letters from June 2
HYDERABAD: Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka on Tuesday announced that sanction letters will be handed over to the beneficiaries of Rajiv Yuva Vikasam scheme across the state from June 2 to 9.
During a review meeting on implementation of the scheme held at the Secretariat here, the deputy CM directed the officials to meticulously plan and carry out the sanction letter distribution process.
Vikramarka also said that district- and constituency-level training programmes should be conducted from June 10 to 15, after which the scheme implementation process should be started. 'The aim is to start the Rajiv Yuva Vikasam scheme on June 2 and empower five lakh youth with self-employment opportunities by Gandhi Jayanti on October 2,' he said.
The deputy CM instructed senior officials of the SC, ST, BC and minority welfare departments to coordinate with district in-charge ministers and collectors in order to help urban youth interested in becoming gig workers to purchase two-wheelers under the Yuva Vikasam scheme.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Prepare proposals for abolition of NALA Act: Cabinet sub-panel
VIJAYAWADA: The Cabinet sub-committee for introducing reforms in Revenue department directed the officials to prepare proposals for abolition of NALA Act. The Cabinet committee led by Minister for Revenue Anagani Satya Prasad, Minister Payyavula Keshav and Minister P Narayana met at the Secretariat on Wednesday and discussed on the NALA Act. Speaking on the occasion, Minister for Finance Payyavula Keshav said that the officials were asked to prepare draft proposals for abolition of NALA Act. He said for using agricultural land for other purposes, people are forced to make rounds to different offices and after noticing the problems of people, Chief Minister Chadnrababu Naidu announced abolition of NALA Act during thea Collectors' conference. The Minister said officials were asked to prepare proposals to make the procedure easy in which people who are developing ventures and utilising the agricultural land for other purposes can get land transformation by paying necessary tax without making rounds to offices. He said based on the complaints of people, the State government decided to abolish NALA Act and reduce land tax. The Minister said the issue will be discussed in the cabinet meeting to be held on June 19.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
SC deadline nears, illegal buildings in protected Aravalis face bulldozers
Gurgaon: Just a month-and-a-half to go for a Supreme Court-ordered deadline, the forest department and Faridabad administration on Wednesday started a 15-day demolition drive to remove all illegal construction and encroachments from protected Aravali land in the district. Officials said around a dozen banquet halls, boundary walls, gates and farmhouses that were built in Anangpur village of Faridabad were razed on Wednesday. This area is protected under Section 4 (special orders) of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which bars construction and any non-forest activities in forests. "We have started the demolition drive. We appeal to people to remove illegal encroachment themselves," a senior forest official said. Haryana govt ordered the demolition drive after the Supreme Court gave the state a three-month extension to clear protected Aravalis of illegal construction. SC, in July 2022, had ruled that all Aravali land under PLPA (special orders) should be treated as forest, with provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act applicable there, and any illegal construction should be demolished. Despite clear directives, Haryana over the years did not complete the task, having razed some 30 structures in four villages of Faridabad since the 2022 ruling. The apex court will take up the case next on Sept 8. The 15-day time frame was given to the Faridabad administration after a meeting chaired by chief secretary Anurag Rastogi on June 7. "All unauthorised constructions, including boundary walls — whether built before or after the 2021 survey—must be demolished within 15 days. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad will oversee the removal of debris, with all costs to be borne by the property owners," read a document on minutes of the meeting. The Faridabad district magistrate will have to submit an action-taken report to the chief secretary, who also said the DM will be held accountable for any delay. Rastogi will hold another review meeting on June 27. On Wednesday, environmentalists said Faridabad was not the only Haryana district where protected Aravali forests have been encroached on. "Although demolition has begun in four villages of Faridabad after nearly three years, the order actually applies to special orders of Section 4 PLPA on all of Haryana, not just these villages. So far, no other districts have initiated the drive," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist and wildlife expert. After SC's 2022 order, Haryana forest department had carried out a survey to identify illegal construction and found that 6,973 structures – most of them banquet halls and residential settlements – were built over protected PLPA land in four villages of Faridabad. A majority of these were in Anangpur (5,948) and the remaining in Ankhir, Lakkarpur, and Mewla Maharajpur. No such survey has been organised in Gurgaon. But activists allege that illegal construction is rampant in the Aravalis of Sohna, Raisina and Gwalpahari in the city, all of which are also protected by PLPA's special orders.
