Expert group submits report on caste survey to Telangana govt
Chief minister A Revanth Reddy, along with deputy CM Bhatti Vikramarka, some ministers received the report at a programme at MCRHRD Institute. The CM said the report would be placed in the next cabinet meeting, likely to be held on July 25, for discussion.
The 300-page report assumes significance as the govt is set to earmark 42% reservations to the Backward Classes (BCs) in local bodies and is awaiting approval of the ordinance it sent to the governor.
The high court had directed the state govt to complete the election to panchayats by Sept 30, including fixing reservations in a month. CM Revanth said, "This is not just data but Telangana's mega health check-up X-ray.
As promised by Rahul Gandhi, we successfully conducted a caste survey in the state. This report will be useful for the uplift of the weaker sections in the state and for implementing social justice."
You Can Also Check:
Hyderabad AQI
|
Weather in Hyderabad
|
Bank Holidays in Hyderabad
|
Public Holidays in Hyderabad
Revanth further requested the expert group to study the differences between urban and rural areas and the reasons for them.
"We request the committee to identify the needs of the people and give appropriate suggestions," he added.
Sources told TOI that the report submitted by the expert group calculated a composite backwardness index (CBI) for each of the 242 castes in the SEEEPC survey. The report presents a first-of-its-kind analytical model to measure socio-economic backwardness and assigns a CBI score and rank for all 242 castes. The expert group was tasked to study, verify, analyse, and interpret the SEEEPC survey data of various castes.
It was appointed on March 12, 2025. Kancha Ilaiah (vice chairman), Praveen Chakravarthy (convenor), Prof Shantha Sinha, Sukhadeo Thorat, Himanshu, Nikhil Dey, Prof Bhangya Bhukya, and Prof K Purushottam Reddy, among others, comprise the expert working group that studied, verified, analysed, and interpreted the SEEEPC survey.
'Make report public'
Meanwhile, Telangana BC Commission chairman G Niranjan on Saturday said the independent expert group has submitted its report on the caste survey to the state govt, adding that it will serve as a valuable tool for advancing social justice. He recommended that the report be made public to ensure transparency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
70 ITIs in Maharashtra to teach Solar Technician and EV Mechanic courses: Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha
The Union Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship has approved the introduction of two new courses–Solar Technician (Electric) and EV Mechanic (Electric Vehicle)–in 70 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) in Maharashtra, Skill Development, Employment, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha announced on Wednesday. The ministry's Directorate-General of Training has also approved a plan to establish a Government Advanced ITI at Chembur, Mumbai, for the empowerment and uplift of Scheduled Caste and Neo-Buddhist communities, the minister said in a statement. This institution will offer courses like Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Technician, Electrician, Wireman, IoT Technician (Smart City), and Electric Mechanic starting from the academic year 2025-26. Lodha said the modern curriculum updates in line with changing times would enhance employment opportunities and revolutionise ITI education in the state. The 70 selected government-run ITIs will teach the two new courses now, Lodha said, adding that further approvals would be given to institutions that request them. Lodha said the state government was focusing on environmentally sustainable initiatives. He added that given the growing demand for solar energy-related technologies, skilled technicians were increasingly needed in the field. Senior scientist Dr Raghunath Mashelkar and MITRA CEO Praveen Pardeshi provided valuable guidance and recommendations for updating ITI curricula, according to the government statement. Lodha emphasised that the goal of the skill development department is to provide students with education that is aligned with industry demands and to generate a highly skilled workforce. According to the statement, the Government is trying to upgrade 36 district-level ITIs across the state in collaboration with private industries. These collaborations aim to enhance training quality and infrastructure, create more employment opportunities annually, and align new skill-based courses with the National Education Policy. The focus remains on launching in-demand, industry-relevant courses, and expanding opportunities for employment through skill exhibitions and career guidance camps, according to the statement.
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump sees emergencies everywhere. Judges are considering whether to rein him in
WASHINGTON : Across the U.S. landscape, Donald Trump sees one emergency after another, and that is posing a host of challenges for the federal courts. Since beginning his second term, Trump has declared in dozens of presidential documents that the U.S. faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary actions that circumvent normal government processes. That gambit offers him a path of unilateral action instead of the uncertain route of enacting legislation through Congress. On Inauguration Day, Trump declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico and transnational cartels. In the months since, he has proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court, California water regulations and protests against his immigration policies all constitute emergencies of one form or another. The moves have spurred many lawsuits. While the details vary, the cases share common core questions: When does the law allow Trump to claim power this way? And are the emergencies he is claiming real ones? The president's strategy faces perhaps its biggest test yet on Thursday, when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political and diplomatic issues he has labeled emergencies goes before a federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court; if Trump wins, legal experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate the economy. Almost all presidents are aggressive in their use of executive power, but Trump 'has gone further with declaring emergencies than other presidents have," says Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Trump early in his second term has built a mixed record in court. Several courts have rejected his proclamation under a 1798 statute, the Alien Enemies Act, that Venezuela is attempting a 'predatory incursion" of U.S. territory through the unauthorized immigration of members of a criminal gang. The president has argued that the law gives him the authority to apprehend Venezuelans and remove them without the typical due process given to immigrants who are residing in the U.S. without permission. In June, a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed that Trump could use emergency powers to take control of the California National Guard over the objection of its regular commander in chief, Gov. Gavin Newsom, to protect federal personnel and facilities during immigration raids in Los Angeles. Trump enjoyed some success asserting emergency powers during his first term. In 2019, after Congress declined his request to fund a wall along the Mexican border, Trump declared a national emergency and diverted to the project $2.5 billion that lawmakers had appropriated for other purposes. Congress voted to cancel the border emergency, but Trump vetoed the resolution. Lower courts found that Trump exceeded his authority, but a 5-4 Supreme Court issued a temporary order in 2020 allowing him to continue with construction. The justices never got a chance to hear argument over the issue, as President Joe Biden terminated Trump's emergency declaration in January 2021. Biden didn't fare as well when he sought to cancel student-loan debt to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Supreme Court said Biden's plan to forgive $430 billion in debt exceeded the powers Congress granted the president to waive or modify student-loan programs in response to national emergencies. In the tariff litigation, two federal courts found in May that Trump exceeded the authority granted by a 1977 statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, when he imposed tariffs to pressure foreign governments to meet U.S. demands. He said one set of tariffs was necessary to prod Canada, China and Mexico to step up their fight against fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., while another aimed to goad countries throughout the world to lower barriers against American exports. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but it can delegate authority to the president. The 1977 law allows the president to take economic steps to deal with 'unusual and extraordinary" threats to America's 'national security, foreign policy, or economy." Whether the statute provides for tariffs at all is hotly debated, as is the difficult question of whether courts can and should second-guess a president's decision to proclaim that an emergency exists. In court briefs, the New York wine importer VOS Selections and other companies challenging the tariffs say Trump himself acknowledged that there is no emergency. 'At least nine times, Executive Order 14,257 describes the trade deficit as 'large and persistent,'" the plaintiffs say. A persistent problem 'that has been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy for 50 years" can't be deemed an emergency, they say. In reply, the Justice Department says that trade imbalances have grown into an emergency over recent years. But, as it has in other cases, the administration argues that judges are powerless to second-guess Trump's determinations. 'Courts cannot substitute their exercise of discretion for the president's," the government says. Historically, that has been the practice, says Peter Shane, a constitutional scholar at New York University. 'Federal courts are usually pretty deferential to presidential fact-finding when it comes to an emergency," he says. The Constitution provides the executive branch no explicit authority to set aside normal laws, suggesting the framers 'suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies," as Justice Robert Jackson put it in a 1952 opinion. Nonetheless, presidents have over time asserted extraordinary authority to deal with contingencies that Congress didn't anticipate—and take actions that Congress didn't authorize. President Richard Nixon, faced with a Democratic Congress critical of his Vietnam War policies and conservative agenda at home, took unilateral action on several initiatives. Congress tried in the 1970s to reclaim some of the power that Nixon had consolidated in his so-called imperial presidency. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 established procedures for the president to declare emergencies, set a renewable one-year time limit on emergency declarations and gave Congress authority to cancel an emergency declaration. Trump has invoked that act at least eight times this year. Write to Jess Bravin at
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to an in-house inquiry panel's report that found him involved in the cash discovery matter. The court questioned Justice Varma's decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage. 'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable finding, and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction — conduct is also relevant,' Justice Datta said. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge, and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. 'If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,' he argued. Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing. 'Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the bench said. The bench pointed out that the Chief Justice of India post is not supposed to be a post office only. 'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If, on the basis of the material, it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to call for action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said. He further stated that the 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141. However, the bench agreed with Sibal's argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure. The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad High Court. Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
