Cabinet likely to decide on 42% BC quota, panchayat polls & key reports today
panchayat elections
.
Sources told TOI that the govt must decide on BC reservations as the high court-set deadline to finalise reservations within a month expired two days ago.
The court also directed the govt to complete the panchayat elections by Sept 30.
With the ordinance to remove the 50 cap on the quota from the Panchayat Raj Act of 2018 still pending with the governor, and the issue of including the enhanced BC quota in the IX Schedule of the Constitution likely to take much more time, the cabinet must decide on reservations or inform the court of the reasons for the delay.
You Can Also Check:
Hyderabad AQI
|
Weather in Hyderabad
|
Bank Holidays in Hyderabad
|
Public Holidays in Hyderabad
One of the key reports that would be placed before the cabinet for discussion is the over 300-page report submitted by Justice (Retd) Sudarshan Reddy-led independent group of experts, which analysed the caste survey data.
The cabinet would discuss the report in detail and is likely to decide on fixing reservations for the BCs in local bodies. The govt plans to approve this report and place it in the assembly for discussion.
The cabinet would also discuss the road map as the Kaleshwaram probe report is likely to be submitted in a day or two. Justice (Retd) PC Ghose arrived in the city on Sunday. The extended term of the Ghose commission probing the case expires on July 31.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You)
Mobility Scooter | Search Ads
Search Now
Undo
Likewise, the experts committee, appointed by the state govt to probe the exact cause of a major blast in Sigachi industries which claimed over 40 lives, has submitted its report, along with its recommendations, to the govt. The report would be placed before the cabinet.
Distribution of ration cards, Indiramma houses, Gig Workers Welfare Bill, Rajiv Yuva Vikasam, monsoon agriculture plan, and other key issues the govt needs to focus on ahead of panchayat elections are likely to be discussed in the cabinet meeting.
The cabinet was originally scheduled to be held on July 25, but was deferred to July 28 as most of the ministers, along with the CM, were in New Delhi on July 24, where they gave a presentation to the AICC top leaders and MPs about the caste survey. The following day, the BC community ministers stayed back in the national capital to attend the Bhagidari Nyay Sammelan at Talkatora Stadium, due to which the cabinet meeting was postponed to Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
YSRCP to launch App for reporting ‘harassment and injustice by officials'
The YSRCP is preparing to launch a mobile application next week that is designed to document and report 'instances of harassment and injustice by the officials.' Disclosing this at the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) meeting on Tuesday, YSRCP president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy said the app would be useful to lodge complaints against the officials who 'harass or mistreat' people or party workers. 'People can submit detailed accounts of the incidents, along with any supporting evidence, such as photos or documents. They will be securely stored in a digital library server,' he said, adding, 'The moment our government comes to power, we will open this digital library and ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law. Those responsible will be brought to justice with interest. No one will be spared.' Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy alleged that the NDA dispensation was engaged in 'deception and vengeance.' The Naidu-led government misused State machinery to target YSRCP leaders through false cases and arrests. The arrests of MP Midhun Reddy, Nandigam Suresh, Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy and Kakani Govardhan Reddy were politically motivated, he alleged. Allegations against police 'A few police officials, including DIGs, DSPs, and CIs, are involved in organised crime, extortion, and illegal liquor auctions, with kickbacks allegedly flowing to the MLAs and even the Chief Minister's family,' Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy alleged. He called upon the leaders to shed complacency and take the lead in revitalising the party's organisational framework. 'Our honeymoon period is over. If we don't act now, we risk losing touch with the people,' he said, adding the party must prepare for elections at any time, and build a strong structure that would ensure YSRCP's continuity for the next 30 to 40 years. He directed that party committees be immediately set up at the village and booth levels. He highlighted the success of the party's campaign titled 'Recalling Chandrababu's Manifesto – Babu Surety, Fraud Guarantee'.
Time of India
11 minutes ago
- Time of India
Akhilesh Questions Timing Of Pahalgam Revenge, Hints At Ceasefire ‘Friendship' With US
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has stirred a major political storm by questioning the timing and intent of Operation Mahadev, the Indian Army-led offensive that killed three Pakistani terrorists linked to the Pahalgam massacre. During a fiery Lok Sabha debate, Akhilesh asked why civilians weren't protected in Pahalgam on April 22 and who would be held accountable for the security lapse. He claimed Operation Sindoor was necessitated by government failure, and even suggested a hidden understanding with the U.S. and Pakistan behind the ceasefire. Taking a poetic dig at PM Modi, Akhilesh said: "Main duniya ko manane mein laga hoon, mera ghar mujhse rootha ja raha hai." While acknowledging the Army's sacrifice, he criticized the media portrayal of the strikes as exaggerated. Is this political scrutiny or playing into enemy hands? Watch the full debate and its implications.#operationsindoor #operationmahadev #amitshah #akhileshyadav #akhileshyadavspeech #operationmahadev #pok #parliamentdebate #terrorism #modivsakhilesh #sindoorstrike #pakistan #parliament #loksabha #loksabhadebate #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews Read More
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
