Telangana Congress delimitation panel to consult legal experts, review past reports; leaders ask for representation
HYDERABAD: The first meeting of the delimitation committee of the Telangana Congress on Monday decided to consult legal and constitutional experts. They will also study the reports of previous delimitation commissions, based on which a report will be prepared to ensure that injustice is not done to Telangana and other southern states.
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
The Print
31 minutes ago
- The Print
JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru
Second, a look at the events prior to the declaration of the Emergency reveals an opposite scenario, one that can be verified from press records. It was the anti-Indira agitators, led by Jayaprakash (JP) Narayan, who brazenly and repeatedly acted against the Constitution. This involved insulting MLAs, forcing them to resign, instigating police and security forces to disobey, forcibly stopping students from going to schools and colleges, beating up government officials, calling for and forming 'parallel government' and 'parallel Assembly', forbidding people from paying taxes, and burning newspaper offices. What were these actions if not arrogant violations of the law and Constitution? First, the action was perfectly constitutional. It was quickly proved, too, both legally and politically. Gandhi's opponents, after they came to power in 1977, could not prosecute her on such a count. Instead, they found Article 352 (1) as the 'culprit', hence its amendment in 1978. So, charging Gandhi as the 'murderer' of the Constitution is a deliberate falsehood. To call the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 25 June 1975 a 'murder' of the Constitution is quite misleading. Therefore, the Emergency imposed to stop it all was quite in order, not only in letter but also in spirit. Article 352 (1) of the Constitution said that in case of 'internal disturbance', the President may declare a state of Emergency. Weren't the JP movement's actions, listed above, a case of internal disturbance? Of course, many initiatives of the government, especially the forced sterilisation, bred resentment. Otherwise, the people's response was mixed. Rather, many things during the Emergency were appreciated, including punctuality in government offices, full attendance in every office, fear among corrupt employees, reduction in bribery, and trains running on time. Only the pre-censorship of the press and incessant government propaganda were not popular. So, let's not glorify JP as a democratic icon unthinkingly. Fifty years later, we need to look at the JP movement critically, too. Who was truly anti-Constitution? Before the imposition of the Emergency, most anti-Constitution activities were done by anti-Indira agitators. JP gave a public call in Bihar to surround the MLAs and force them to resign. He said that people can even 'slap' the MLAs. The Bihar MLAs were elected in 1972 for a term of five years. But in 1974, JP was asking students to force them to resign. The students averse to the boycott were beaten up. In such an incident, a student, Brinda Prasad, was killed in Nalanda. Efforts were also made to forcibly close shops, offices, and traffic. The Patna office of Searchlight, a leading English newspaper of the state, was burned down. Pro-Indira parties such as the CPI were threatened. The Governor was also prevented from going to the Bihar Assembly to deliver his address. In fact, public anger started brewing over such violence and coercion by the JP movement. The situation changed only after the imposition of the Emergency and the arrest of Opposition leaders. But before this, JP compared his anarchist movement to 'the revolution of 1942'. It is well-known that in 1942, an attempt was made to end British rule by violence and destruction. So JP himself indicated that he and his supporters were to remove the Congress from office by creating mass disorder with violence. The RSS and the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (the older avatar of the BJP) were with JP in the agitation, thus disrespecting the Constitution. 'When these men are so shameless, what is left for the people to do but to go to their houses and bring them out—without touching any member of their families—and tell them that they have to go,' JP said at a public rally in Patna on 6 October 1974. What about the constitutional rights of the MLAs? What were their individual crimes? None. JP's calls were similar to what fascists did in Italy a few decades earlier. The mentality of the JP agitators was hardly more than anti-Indira fanaticism. Opposition leaders just wanted to replace Congress leaders with themselves. And it did happen after the Emergency was lifted and Gandhi voluntarily called for the general elections. But her opponents had little ability to run even a routine government, and fell apart in two years. The people reinstated Gandhi less than three years after the Emergency. If the Emergency was truly the horror it is made out to be, this would not have happened. Why undermine this vital fact today? Also read: English is now code for 'Khan Market Gang'. BJP is fighting a phantom enemy Guru Mao The leaders emerging from the JP movement showed nothing more than a lust for office. During 1974-75, JP, the RSS, and the CPM were only trying to use each other to gain power. There was nothing glorious or exemplary in their effort. And JP's ideals were anything but in accordance with the Constitution. The leader gave the call of 'total revolution', which was ipso facto against the Constitution. The very meaning of revolution is to forcefully end an existing system, destroying that which the current Constitution maintains. All revolutions in the world—the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Khomeini Revolution—destroyed the existing systems in their respective countries. So, JP's very call for 'revolution' was against the Constitution. If that was not enough, he mentioned Mao as his 'Guru', saying that 'only a revolutionary knows another revolutionary'. (Patriot, 27 October 1974). JP was calling himself a disciple of Mao, the very leader whose ugly Cultural Revolution caused unprecedented destruction in China. It is difficult, therefore, to find a more anti-Constitution stance than JP's. The terrible import of his statement can be better understood by the fact that a few years before, JP was 'toying with the idea of military dictatorship in India'. (Indian Express, 8 May 1967). He was of the view that in case of a situation of political instability in the country (a power vacuum was felt in many states after the defeat of the Congress), the army could take over. This was a sort of provocation by JP to the army. Senior CPM leaders AK Gopalan and Basavapunnaiah had warned JP against the idea, since they thought that it amounted to 'patronising flattery of our armed forces and utter contempt of the people'. (SS Khera, India's Defence Problem, 1968, Orient Longmans, p 81). That such statements were noted by Khera, a former Secretary of Defence, indicates the gravity of JP's observations. During his agitation, JP tried to provoke the police and paramilitary forces. A point Gandhi mentioned in her address to the country on 25 June 1975. In his speech at the Gandhi Maidan, Patna on 5 June 1974, JP attempted to foment discontent in the police, and asked paramilitary forces to refuse 'open fire'. Despite his impatience to remove the Bihar government, JP had no clear plan after the victory of his movement. And the less said about his directionless followers, the better. In fact, JP had been thinking about a 'party-less democracy' for a long time. In 1974, too, he opined that his 'Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti' (student struggle committees) could replace political parties and get candidates fielded directly by the public, under the samiti folks' guidance. But when asked, earlier, if there was any example of his party-less democracy, JP responded with an idea of Pakistani dictator Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Now, what JP meant by his movement being 'a second 1942' and 'moving toward a new revolution' is anybody's guess. All that JP's words and actions reveal is a contempt for the Constitution. Or, as the present BJP leadership would call it, 'murdering' the Constitution. In the 1970s, it was JP and his allies, including RSS-Jan Sangh, committing this murder, not Gandhi and her Congress. Take another example, when JP said that 'the student and mass movement in Bihar is ready for a decisive offensive from 2 October 1974'. For what? For the forced removal of the elected state government in Bihar. That was the core of his movement: a complete disregard for constitutional mandates. In such circumstances, it would have been natural for any ruler to protect the constitutional system from such revolutionaries. Indira Gandhi undertook a perfectly constitutional step by imposing the Emergency; the atrocities during the period are a different matter. It is wrong to call the proclamation of the Emergency a 'murder of the Constitution' and to make it a state commemoration. It may mislead the new generation and create hate among political activists of different orientations. If anything, the act amounts to partisan indoctrination, quite against the spirit of the Constitution. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Emergency horrible mistake, darkest period for liberty: Legal experts
The proclamation of Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975 was a "horrible mistake" and the "darkest period" for liberty in India's history post-independence, eminent legal experts have said. They said the 21-months period of Emergency imposed 50 years ago was a "grim watermark" in India's democratic journey and it had its most profound impact on the country's democratic institutions. "The Emergency was a horrible mistake. Its major lesson is that constitutional power should never be personalised. That is also a message to our present rulers. Tyranny is anathema. The people of India stood up against it. And they always will," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan shared. Noted constitutional law expert and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said the 1975 Emergency had a political as well as a judicial dimension. In the 1976 ADM Jabalpur case , a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, upheld the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency. Live Events The majority verdict of the then Chief Justice of India A N Ray and Justices M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati held that the right to seek legal remedy for violations of Article 21 was suspended during the Emergency. The lone dissenter, Justice H R Khanna, held that the right to life and liberty is inherent and not merely a gift from the Constitution. The 1975 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain had preceded the ADM Jabalpur verdict. On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court convicted Gandhi of electoral malpractices and debarred her from holding any elected post under the Representative of Peoples Act. The verdict is widely believed to have led to imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975. Gandhi had won the 1971 Lok Sabha election from the Rae Bareli seat in Uttar Pradesh by defeating her opponent Narain. Narain challenged her election alleging electoral malpractices saying Gandhi's election agent Yashpal Kapoor was a government servant and that she used government officials for personal election related work. "This darkest period (of Emergency) for liberty in India's history post-independence was marked by both political abuse of constitutional powers and authoritarianism by Congress leadership under Indira Gandhi as well as ... atrocious judicial response of Supreme Court amounting to surrender before authoritarianism," Dwivedi said. He also referred to the historic judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The path-breaking 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgement on "basic structure" doctrine had clipped the vast power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and simultaneously gave the judiciary the authority to review any amendment. While Dwivedi said people's active vigilance is the only guarantee against destruction of constitutional democracy, Dhavan said power corrupts and absolute power is intolerable. "The message is -- never again, now or ever," Dhavan added. In the landmark nine-judges "Right to Privacy" Puttaswamy ruling in 2017, the bench effectively overruled the ADM Jabalpur verdict and said, "The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence." When histories of nations are written and critiqued, the bench said, there are judicial decisions at the forefront of liberty. The verdict continued, "Yet others have to be consigned to the archives, reflective of what was, but should never have been." "ADM Jabalpur must be and is accordingly overruled," held the nine-judge Constitution bench. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said, "As someone engaged with constitutional law, I regard the Emergency imposed between June 1975 and March 1977 as a grim watermark in India's democratic journey". While terming the ADM Jabalpur case verdict as "regrettable", Pahwa highlighted the "moments of correction" including Puttaswamy judgement which recognised right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. "These shifts illustrate that while constitutional setbacks are real, course correction is possible -- but only through institutional courage and public vigilance. The lesson of the Emergency is not archival; it is a living reminder that democracy must be defended daily, not just electorally, but constitutionally," he said. Advocate Ashwani Dubey said the most profound impact of Emergency was on India's democratic institutions and suspension of fundamental rights led to widespread human rights abuses. He referred to the arbitrary arrests and detention without trial during that period. "The censorship of the press stifled free expression, leading to a climate of fear and suppression of dissent. The government controlled the narrative, and any criticism was ruthlessly suppressed," Dubey said. He said not only individual freedoms were curbed, the Emergency period undermined the media's role as a watchdog of democracy.
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
"Attack on Baba Saheb's Constitution," Congress MP Rahul Gandhi condemns cruel treatment of two Dalit youths in Odisha
New Delhi [India], June 24 (ANI): Congress MP Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday condemned the alleged cruel treatment of two Dalit youths in Odisha, where they were reportedly forced to crawl on their knees, eat grass, and drink dirty water. Gandhi called the act inhumane and linked it to caste discrimination, saying such incidents are increasing in BJP-ruled states. He said these incident tramples the dignity of Dalits and are an attack on Baba Saheb's Constitution, a conspiracy against equality, justice, and humanity. In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi wrote, 'Forcing two Dalit youths in Odisha to crawl on their knees, eat grass, and drink dirty water is not just inhumane but a barbarity rooted in Manuwadi ideology. This incident is a mirror for those who claim that caste is no longer an issue. Every incident that tramples the dignity of Dalits is an attack on Baba Saheb's Constitution, a conspiracy against equality, justice, and humanity.' Gandhi demanded that the culprits be immediately arrested and given strict punishment. 'Such incidents are becoming common in BJP-ruled states because their politics is built on hatred and hierarchy. Atrocities against SCs, STs, and women have alarmingly increased, especially in Odisha. The culprits must be immediately arrested and given strict punishment. The country will run by the Constitution, not by Manusmriti,' the post reads. Earlier on June 21, Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of 'match fixing' the elections, claiming that the new instructions to delete CCTV footage of the election after 45 days of polls is just a way to 'delete evidence.' The Leader of Opposition raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral process, citing the destruction of evidence as a potential indicator of election rigging. He warned that a fixed election would be 'poison for democracy,' highlighting the need for a free and fair electoral process. The Congress leader alleged that the CCTV footage is being hidden by changing the law, raising suspicions about the intentions behind this move. (ANI)
