Lok Sabha passes Bill to provide reservation to STs in Goa Assembly
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal moved 'The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Tribes in Assembly Constituencies of the State of Goa Bill, 2025' for consideration and passage amid din in the House and the legislation was passed by a voice vote.
Incidentally, the Bill was introduced in the Lower House on this day in 2024 and had been pending since then. This is the first Bill to be passed by the Lok Sabha in the ongoing Monsoon session which has seen disruptions by the Opposition on various issues, including the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
After the passage of the Bill, Sandhya Ray, who was in the chair, adjourned the proceedings for the day as protests by opposition MPs continued unabated.
According to the Bill, the population of the Scheduled Tribes has increased considerably in Goa as per the 2011 census vis-a-vis 2001 census figures.
It noted that a "peculiar situation" has arisen in the state, wherein the population of the STs there vis-a-vis the population of SCs is considerably higher— as per the Primary Census Abstract, 2011 for Goa.
The total population was 14,58,545; the population of SCs was 25,449 and the population of STs was 1,49,275.
"But no seats are reserved for the STs and they are unable to avail the constitutional benefit of reservation...". As of now, no seat in the 40-member Goa Assembly is reserved for the ST community, while one seat is reserved for Scheduled Castes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
DCC president, LDF candidate allege large-scale voters' list manipulation in Thrissur LS poll
In a major political flashpoint ahead of the next electoral cycle, Thrissur District Congress Committee (DCC) president Joseph Tajet and Communist Party of India (CPI) State council member and the LDF candidate in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls in Thrissur V.S. Sunilkumar have levelled serious allegations of large-scale voters' list manipulation in the Thrissur parliamentary constituency. Both leaders claim that non-residents were illegally added to the rolls using closed houses and vacant flats as cover addresses, with Mr. Tajet directly implicating Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate, and currently MP, Suresh Gopi. 'Documentary evidence' Presenting what he described as 'documentary evidence,' Mr. Tajet alleged that the names of Mr. Gopi, his brother Subhash Gopi, and their family members were added to booth No. 116, under serial numbers 1016 to 1026, just months before the election. 'These votes were registered under the address 'Bharath Heritage,' house number 10/219/2. Even after the family vacated the property post-election, their votes remain active on the Election Commission's Voter Helpline app,' Mr. Tajet said. He pointed out that the Thrissur Corporation's official voter list for Division 11 – Mukkattukara, Part 2 – did not include these names, which, according to him, 'proves they are not permanent residents of the said address.' The DCC chief alleged a similar case in Booth No. 30, where 45 names were added under addresses such as Capital Gardens, Top Paradise, Chaitram IDBI, Capital Village, and Sreesankari apartments. 'Not one of them lived there before or after the election. Yet their votes are still active,' Mr. Tajet said, adding that other complexes including Shobha Sapphire, Shobha City, Chelur Country Court, Shakthi Apartments, Water Lily Flats, Govind Apartments, and Shobha Top Plaza also had fraudulent additions. 'None of them are on the Corporation's voters' list,' he said. 'These are not isolated incidents,' Mr. Tajet said. 'When the BJP itself boasts about adding 65,000 votes, the public has a right to know if this was the method used. This is a blot on democracy. The Election Commission must act. It is sad that Mr. Gopi himself started these irregularities,' he added. Clarifying on complaint Mr. Sunilkumar echoed the charge, going further to question the conduct of the returning officer. 'There is reason to suspect that the then Thrissur District Collector V.R. Krishna Theja, the returning officer, misled the Chief Electoral Officer,' he said. Mr. Sunilkumar claimed that the LDF had officially complained about the irregularities before the polls, naming specific individuals who were allegedly added to the voters list just before the LS elections from other constituencies. 'My chief election agent, K.P. Rajendran, filed a complaint on March 25, 2024, and even submitted a follow-up with names. The Chief Electoral Commissioner's claim that no timely complaint was made and we didn't use opportunity to file petition in the High Court are false and misleading. It raises the question, who was being protected?' He also alleged that 'technical issues' were encountered while attempting to access the Election Commission site recently, calling it suspicious. 'Ineligible people voted' 'After the first draft list, BJP workers added new votes. Simply owning a house in an area doesn't make one a voter there. We even found voters from Alathur and Thrippunithura added to Thrissur. By relaxing the rules, ineligible people were given voting rights,' he said. Both leaders demanded a high-level probe into what they called 'systematic voters list manipulation' and warned that failing to act would undermine public trust in the democratic process.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
New I-T Bill with Parl panel's suggestions to be tabled on Monday: Rijiju
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Saturday said that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will introduce the new Income Tax Bill, as cleared by a Select Committee, in the Lok Sabha on Monday. Rijiju's statement came in the wake of apprehensions voiced in a section of the media on the withdrawal of the Income Tax Bill from the Lok Sabha on Friday. "It is being presumed that there will be an absolutely new bill, ignoring the earlier bill for which a lot of work was done, and all the work done and time spent will go down," Rijiju said. The minister made it clear that the apprehensions were ill founded as the new bill to be introduced will incorporate all the changes which have been suggested by the Select Committee and which have been accepted by the government. Rijiju said it was a normal parliamentary procedure when the amendments to a bill already introduced in the Lok Sabha are too many. The Select Committee of the Lok Sabha, chaired by BJP member Baijayant Panda, made 285 suggestions to the Income Tax Bill, which were accepted by the government. Rijiju said the need for a new bill arose as it would have been a tedious process to introduce each of the amendments and seek approval of the House separately. "It is a normal convention that when a Select Committee submits a report and there are a number of amendments which are suggested and accepted by the government, the earlier bill is withdrawn and a new bill with all the amendments as accepted is introduced, so that it becomes easier for the Parliament to consider and pass the bill," Rijiju said. The minister said there should be no apprehension that the new Income Tax Bill, which is going to be introduced on Monday, will be different. "It will be the same bill incorporating all the amendments accepted by the government," Rijiju said. Stating that all the hard work done in the last six months will not go waste, the minister said, "On the contrary, the hard work done by each one and the suggestions will get reflected in the new Income Tax Bill, which the finance minister will introduce in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Hits and misses in the one nation, one election idea
Over the past decade, the Narendra Modi government has embraced a series of 'One Nation' policies aimed at replacing India's diverse patchwork of state-specific policies with uniform, national schemes. From the Goods and Services Tax ('One Nation, One Tax') to the portability of subsidised rations ('One Nation, One Ration Card'), the impulse has been toward centralisation and standardisation. Now, the government is pursuing one of the most controversial of these projects: One nation, one election. This proposal seeks to replace India's staggered electoral calendar with simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies. The idea has featured in Modi's speeches for years but was given a boost in March 2024, when a high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind endorsed the idea. In December, the government introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill to give the Election Commission of India (ECI) the authority to implement such a system. The Bill is currently being reviewed by a joint parliamentary committee. Modi and his BJP colleagues have long argued that frequent polls disrupt governance, drain resources, and induce short-term populism. India's current electoral calendar ensures that some part of the country is almost always in campaign mode. Proponents argue that constant elections constitute an undue burden on the State's coffers. And the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) — an informal set of norms to ensure a level-playing field during the campaign period — is cited as a source of 'policy paralysis'. There is obvious appeal to aligning India's staggered election calendar, but there are less disruptive, less dramatic solutions to the underlying problems the government wishes to solve. The case for simultaneity: The proposed Constitutional amendment would overhaul India's electoral framework. It introduces a one-time transitory provision to dissolve all state assemblies, so their elections coincide with the next Lok Sabha polls, thereafter locking both into a single five-year cycle. If a government — state or national — dissolves mid-term, fresh elections would be held only to complete the remainder of the original term. Supporters of this far-reaching reform advance three main arguments. First, simultaneous elections will yield savings in time, money, and bureaucratic resources. Political leaders and government machinery, freed from perpetual campaigning, could spend more time on governance. Voters, especially migrants and students, would require less travel. Proponents also point to reduced campaign costs and a lighter administrative burden. Second, fewer elections — they argue — would mean less voter fatigue and greater turnout. Third, they contend that aligned elections would enhance governance efficiency. With the MCC in force less frequently, governments could avoid frequent halts to new projects, and coordination between state and national administrations might improve, particularly if concurrent elections produced aligned political outcomes. The problems with one-size-fits-all: These arguments have merit, but each is weaker — or more complicated — than advertised. On time savings, the real issue is less about the electoral calendar than about campaign strategy. The BJP, like other parties before it, has deliberately 'nationalised' even the most local contests by deploying its top leaders in subnational campaigns. This is a political choice, not a structural necessity. Staggered elections need not mean the constant diversion of national leadership if parties invested in strong state-level leaders. In terms of costs, India's election administration is remarkably efficient given the scale of the exercise. The 2014 general election cost the central government around 0.03% of GDP. Even including state polls, the share over a five-year period is tiny compared to other budgetary items. If the problem is excessive campaign spending, the answer lies in genuine political finance reform. Instead, the government has gone in the opposite direction, creating opaque mechanisms for political giving such as the unconstitutional electoral bonds scheme. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the diversion of government officials and security forces to conduct, supervise, and secure elections on a staggered basis. But central paramilitary forces have doubled in size since the 1990s, easing concerns about overstretch. Simultaneous elections would require a larger, one-time deployment — creating its own risks. In terms of voter fatigue, the evidence from India is mixed. State election turnout has risen since the decline of simultaneous polls in the late 1960s, often exceeding turnout in national elections. And in states where assembly polls closely follow general elections, turnout has often increased (albeit by a smaller margin than in non-proximate elections). On government efficiency, the MCC is more limited than often claimed: It applies only to states holding elections, not nationwide (except during general elections), and does not halt ongoing programmes. Ironically, simultaneous elections could also result in more — not fewer — elections. According to the proposed amendment, if a government loses a vote of no-confidence and a fresh election is called, the newly elected government will only serve the remainder of the unexpired term. In that case, the efficiency argument for aligned polls no longer holds water. Risks to democracy and federalism: Beyond these weaknesses lie deeper concerns about democratic design. First, the essence of parliamentary government is that the executive is continuously accountable to the legislature and, by extension, the public. A shift toward a system resembling fixed terms upends this. Second, standardising state and national elections on a single cycle creates fewer opportunities for public participation and debate. The current staggered system of elections allows voters to act as a check on a dominant national party. Finally, the amendment gives the ECI broad discretion to delay polls with few limits and without specifying who governs in the interim. This opens the door to greater central control through President's Rule. A better way forward: India's current electoral calendar has costs, but there are less intrusive ways to address them. One option is to reform the MCC. The ECI could convene an all-party meeting to shorten the period it is in force or exempt certain categories of government action from its ambit. A second is to tackle opaque political finance. Parliament could align the ₹2,000 cash cap with the ₹20,000 disclosure threshold — or better yet, ban cash contributions altogether and require Aadhaar verification for all donations. A third is to streamline election scheduling. The 2024 general election stretched over 43 days — the longest voting period in seven decades. Reducing the number of phases would cut the MCC's duration and decrease disruption without changing the staggered nature of elections. If the government insists on consolidation, compromise models exist. One possibility is one nation, two elections, whereby state polls would be clustered at the mid-point of Parliament's term, reducing frequency while retaining separate state and national verdicts. Another option is aligning national and local body elections — saving costs without undermining the role of state assemblies. Proceed with caution: One nation, one election is a bold idea. But it risks centralising power, weakening federalism, and paradoxically increasing the frequency of elections. The better path is to fix the specific problems the proposal seeks to solve through targeted reforms that preserve the strengths of India's vibrant, multi-level democracy. These ideas — less flashy but more practical — have received little airtime in the current debate. They would be a promising place to start. Milan Vaishnav is senior fellow and director of the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This column draws on a new co-authored paper, with Caroline Mallory and Annabel Richter, 'Does 'One Nation, One Election' Make Sense for India?' The views expressed are personal.
