Telangana Congress delimitation panel to consult legal experts, review past reports; leaders ask for representation
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The present delimitation of parliamentary constituencies within states was done on the basis of the 2001 Census, under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002. However, the Constitution was specifically amended in 2002 not to have interstate delimitation of constituencies till the "first census conducted after the year 2026".
Thus, the present constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 Census would continue to be in operation till then.
The TPCC delimitation committee meeting was attended by its chairman and CWC special invitee Ch Vamshi Chand Reddy and its members, AICC in charge Meenakshi Natarajan and Telangana Congress president B Mahesh Kumar Goud. They discussed the formulae adopted by the previous delimitation commissions and decided to study them in detail.
After this meeting, a delegation of the Yadav community leaders met Meenakshi and Mahesh Goud and urged them to provide adequate representation to Yadav and Kurma communities in the ensuing panchayat, MPTC, and ZPTC elections, and also a berth to one of the communities in the cabinet, where three vacancies still exist.
The TPCC chief spoke to the concerned minister and assured them that their request for a cabinet berth would be sent to the AICC leadership. He also assured them that Yadava and Kurma community members would be given opportunities to contest in the forthcoming rural local body polls, but based on the winning prospects of the candidates and their contribution to strengthening the party at the grassroots levels.
Later, Meenakshi addressed a meeting of party leaders on 'Jai Bapu, Jai Bheem, and Samvidhan Bachao' programmes to be taken up in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Amit Shah tables Bills seeking removal of PM, CMs facing serious criminal charges in LS, to be referred to joint panel
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday tabled in Lok Sabha the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Home Minister Amit Shah said the three big-ticket anti-corruption draft laws, which also include provisions for the removal of a prime minister and chief ministers arrested on serious criminal charges, will be sent to the joint committee of the Lok Sabha amid protests by the opposition. According to the proposed laws, if any one of them is arrested and detained in custody for consecutive 30 days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years, they will lose their job on the 31st day. Soon after the introduction of the Bills, Congress leader Manish Tewari said these draft laws undermine the law of the land and called these bills 'unconstitutional.' Tewari demanded that the bills be withdrawn immediately. Shah later informed the house that the three bills would be sent to the joint panel for further scrutiny. This means bills won't be taken up in this Monsoon Session of Parliament as it ends on 21 July, Thursday. (i) The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025; (ii) The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; (iii) The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025; "A minister, who for any period of 30 consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his officeby the Presidenton the advice of the Prime Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody," one of the bill reads. "Provided that if the advice of theprime minister, for the removal of such minister is not tendered to the President by the thirty-first day, he shall cease to be a minister, with effect from the day falling thereafter". "Provided further that in case of the prime minister, who for any period of 30 consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which ispunishable with imprisonmentfor a term which may extend to five years or more, shall tender his resignation by the thirty-first day after such arrest and detention, and if he does not tender his resignation, he shall cease to be the Prime Minister with effect from the day falling thereafter," reads the proposed law. As of now, there is no bar on ministers holding on to their offices after their arrests. Former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji did not resigned from their posts since their arrests on different charges. According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025, there is no provision under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) for the removal of the chief minister or a minister arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. The objectives of theConstitution(One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, say there is no provision under the Constitution for the removal of a minister who is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. The objectives of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, say there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for the removal of the chief minister or a minister arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. Hence, section 54 of theJammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, needs to be amended to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a Minister in such cases. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. The bills' introduction two days before the end of Parliament's Monsoon session and their implications surprised political circles. (This is a developing story. Check back for updates)
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘I resigned before going to jail': Amit Shah's face-off with Congress MP as he tables 3 bills in Lok Sabha
Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday said that the charges once brought against him were 'false,' but he abided by constitutional principles and resigned from his post before going to jail. Amit Shah's strong remarks came in response to Congress leader KC Venugopal's question over his arrest. Union home minister Amit Shah speaks in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday,(Sansad TV) 'I want to clarify that the charges against me were false. But keeping in line with the rules and Constitution, I resigned and then went to jail,' Amit Shah said in Lok Sabha. The face-off broke out after the Union home minister introduced three bills, including the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to remove the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days. Shah further tabled the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The latter proposes changes to section 54 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, to provide for the removal of a chief minister or minister in case of arrest or detention on serious criminal charges. In July 2010, then Gujarat minister of state for home Amit Shah was arrested by the CBI in connection with the alleged fake encounter of gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauser Bi, and associate Tulsiram Prajapati. The agency had implicated him in a conspiracy, citing phone records and other evidence Shah resigned from his ministerial position prior to the arrest. He was remanded to judicial custody at Sabarmati Jail before securing bail later that year. In December 2014, a special CBI court discharged him from all charges, citing a lack of evidence.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tharoor calls for regulation and taxation instead of banning online gaming, supports Constitution Amendment bills
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has criticised the government's ban on online money gaming, suggesting it will only fuel criminal networks. He advocates for regulation and taxation, drawing on international examples where this approach generates revenue for social causes. Tharoor also expressed reservations about the Constitution amendment bills regarding ministers facing criminal charges, urging careful consideration. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday criticised the government's move to ban online money gaming , warning that such a step would only push the industry underground and strengthen criminal also said he had not studied the three Constitution amendment bills seeking to provide a framework for the removal of prime ministers, Union ministers, chief ministers and state ministers detained on serious criminal charges in any detail."On the face of it, it is difficult to say it has any problem, but obviously if anyone does something wrong they should not be a minister anyway. I don't know if there is any other motive," he the bill seeking to prohibit and regulate online gaming introduced in the Lok Sabha , he said, "I had written a very long article on the argument that by banning online gaming we are simply driving it underground, whereas it could be a useful source of revenue for the government if we legalise it, regulate it and tax it."He added that many countries have studied the issue in detail and concluded that regulation and taxation can generate funds for social causes, while bans merely enrich "criminal mafias".In a post on X, Tharoor recalled that he had "gone on record in 2018 urging the government to legalise, regulate and tax online gaming, rather than drive it underground by banning it, which will merely enhance the profits of the mafia"."It's a pity that the government seems to have derived no lessons from the experience of other countries that have considered this issue," he added that the bill should at least have been referred to a parliamentary committee "to consider all the pros and cons before rushing it into law".The proposed bill prohibits online money gaming and its advertisements, prescribing imprisonment or fines, or both, for violators. It differentiates such games from eSports and online social games, while calling for their promotion.
