TMC reaches out to Kejriwal, gets ‘AAP support' for INDIA veep candidate
TMC, which was a part of discussions to shortlist candidates, did not suggest any name but said that the fight should be "for the Constitution and the idea of India versus BJP and RSS ideology."
According to a TMC senior, authorised by the party leadership and INDIA bloc partners, TMC leader in the Rajya Sabha Derek O'Brien met Kejriwal for around 45 minutes. AAP has 10 MPs in the Rajya Sabha and three in the Lok Sabha. A neta aware of the developments said Kejriwal had assured support for Reddy's candidature.
"We expect around 10 AAP MPs to vote for the opposition candidate," the neta said.
The opposition bloc has decided that no such overture will be made to BJD and YSRC. "These parties need to choose their fight," a TMC neta said.
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
|
Gold Rates Today in Kolkata
|
Silver Rates Today in Kolkata
Tuesday's INDIA bloc meeting started around 5.30pm and continued till 10pm in Delhi. Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and party national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, who were in Kolkata, were kept abreast of the developments.
While admitting that numbers were stacked in favour of NDA candidate CP Radhakrishnan, a TMC senior said: "Even with AAP support, we are short on numbers. But we decided that the opposition will put up a strong candidate and we will give it our best shot.
.. some battles need to be fought."
The convergence of Trinamool and Congress, who are not electoral allies, on the VP candidate selection signals a close floor coordination in Parliament.
After the selection of Reddy, O'Brien posted on X: "Teamwork. Candidate for vice-president. Every single opposition party on board. United in our fight against BJP-RSS."
This also comes in the backdrop of Abhishek's Aug 11 statement referring to Congress. "If someone walks one step for us, we will also walk one step for them. Our priority is Bengal. In the current scenario, we will stand by those political parties who will stand next to us in this issue of SIR and Bengal's deprivation. That can be Congress, DMK, Sena or Samajwadi Party. We don't have any ego. We are fighting against the autocratic BJP together," he had said.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC questions right of Jain organisations to seek closure of slaughterhouse for entire Paryushan Parv
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the right of organisations representing the Jain community to seek closure of slaughterhouses for the entire period of nearly 10 days of Paryushan, a prominent Jain festival. The court said there was no legislative mandate in law for such an order. The HC also issued notice to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government, seeking their response to pleas seeking closure of slaughterhouses for the entire festival. The court also said that it cannot stay the present BMC decision. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust and Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities and two other organisations. The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat pertaining to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) that upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close down slaughterhouses during Jain festival. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the BMC, in its August 14 decision, did not consider that the Mumbai city has more Jain population than Ahmedabad. He submitted that BMC's order was exactly a 'copy-paste' version of last year's decision and it 'exhibits lack of application of mind and has been passed by taking into account the material which is not relevant for the purposes of the decision'. The petitioners also referred to Article 51A (g) of the Constitution related to fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and argued the civic bodies should considered the same. The HC remarked that it could not direct the authority to close slaughterhouses for the entire Paryushan Parv as there was 'no legislative mandate' in law. The judges orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) are seeking a mandamus of 10-day closure. For that there has to be a mandate in law. You must have a right which could be enforced by court of law. Where does the law say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days? No stay can be granted (on BMC decision) because you are seeking writ of mandamus. Except for pointing out an error in BMC order , you have not made out a case for issuing mandamus.' The HC emphasised that the SC verdict was on a decision made by Ahmedabad civic body and not one imposed by judicial order of the court. The bench orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) will appreciate the difficulty (of the HC). In SC judgement, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had taken a decision (of closure), which was upheld by the court. But in this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law that they must close (for all 10 days). Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.' Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for another petitioner argued that the BMC had taken a decision despite there being a large number of vegetarian population in the city. He remarked it was easier 'to appeal and convince Mughal emperor Akbar' to prohibit slaughter in Gujarat (in his times as mentioned in SC verdict) but it was difficult to convince the BMC and state government. The HC allowed petitioners to amend the pleas to challenge BMC's August 14 order and posted the hearing after two weeks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Real-money gaming dealt a losing hand as crackdown follows ₹20,000 cr blow
Mounting social concerns and an estimated ₹20,000 crore loss by nearly 450 million people due to frauds in real-money gaming (RMG) have pushed the Centre to impose a blanket ban on the sector. The decision comes amid alarm over opaque algorithms, user addiction, and widespread financial distress linked to games such as rummy, poker, and fantasy sports. The ban not only ends the long-standing debate over whether skill-based or chance-based games can operate in India but also overrides the patchwork of state-level rules on regulating or prohibiting the sector. Experts and industry players warn that the move could backfire by driving users towards unregulated offshore betting platforms. 'Government needs to reconsider and take a more calibrated stance, as prohibition has never worked. This Bill will bring back the satta market with a vengeance. Blanket bans drive users to unregulated platforms rather than protecting them. Instead of reducing harm, prohibitions create black markets that are harder to regulate and far riskier for users,' said Abhay Raj Mishra, president and national convenor of Public Response Against Helplessness & Action for Addressal (PRAHAR). PRAHAR's July 2024 survey of 2,500 gamers in Telangana, where RMG has been banned for eight years, found more than 94 per cent of players still accessing offshore or illicit apps through virtual private networks, Telegram groups, or sideloaded platforms. Industry executives also flagged the dominance of offshore operators, who already control nearly 80 per cent of the RMG market and run operations from tax havens such as Malta, Curaçao, and the British Virgin Islands. 'We continued to absorb high tax costs to keep users engaged. But if costs are passed on, users will simply migrate to untaxed offshore platforms,' said one senior executive. The ban comes even as the sector was reeling under a 28 per cent goods and services tax (GST) imposed in October 2023. More than 400 companies employ 200,000 people in the sector, estimates show. Major players include Dream11, Games24x7, Junglee Games, MPL, Zupee, Gameskraft, Head Digital Works, and Nazara Technologies. The decision has jolted the industry, which until recently was preparing for the impact of a steeper tax rate on margins. 'What has surprised the industry is that the Bill has been tabled without any consultation. We were not aware of this Bill until Tuesday,' said another senior executive. Founders and executives told Business Standard they were questioning the Centre's intent behind a blanket prohibition, especially after years of contributing through taxes, compliances, and outreach. They pointed out that the move came just days after rumours of a higher 40 per cent goods and services tax (GST) slab, categorising gaming as a 'sin' commodity — something they had already deemed unsustainable. 'Why was there revised GST chatter when the sector was supposed to be killed?' asked the founder of an RMG company. A joint report by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, the Interactive Entertainment & Innovation Council, and WinZO said the Indian exchequer loses $2.5 billion annually in tax revenues due to user migration to offshore companies. 'From an economic perspective, the prohibition is likely to hurt an industry that contributes heavily to GST collections and employment, while simultaneously driving users to offshore, unregulated platforms,' said Navod Prasannan, partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates & Attorneys. Between 2022 and 2024, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued blocking directions to 692 gambling and betting websites and apps. 'We acknowledge the government's decision to ban RMG and respect that this step has been taken after careful consideration of the social and regulatory concerns associated with the sector. As responsible stakeholders, we recognise the government's priority to safeguard consumer interests, prevent harm, and ensure that innovation aligns with national well-being,' said Shweta Rajpal Kohli, president and chief executive officer (CEO), Startup Policy Forum. Casual games level up? The Bill proposes recognition for e-sports where games do not involve wagering and rely on factors such as mental agility or strategic thinking. Currently, categories such as casual, midcore, or AAA-rated games depend on advertising or in-app purchases for revenue. A void in the RMG space may steer users towards e-sports, with the sector welcoming the Centre's decision. 'I welcome the Centre's decision to prohibit RMG and establish a strong regulatory framework. Too many young lives were being lost to addiction and debt. This decisive step safeguards our youth while unlocking the future of Indian gaming, driven by original intellectual property (IP), creativity, and Make in India games,' said Vishal Gondal, cofounder of nCore Games. Ecosystem participants added that the move is expected to drive stronger IP development in the country. 'We applaud this decision, as it allows us to focus on the real concerns as a business — monetisation, retention, and most importantly, building great IP for India and the world, rather than having to explain to our audiences what we are to begin with,' said Sumit Batheja, CEO and cofounder of Ginger Games.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Governor stalling assent to bills undermines elected state governments: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
