Farmer leader slams TN govt's farm scheme as eyewash, warns of protest
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Speaking to reporters in Madurai, Pandian said the scheme, introduced to address farmers' grievances, had failed in implementation—particularly in Thiruvarur district, where just one assistant director in the agriculture department is assigned to 10 blocks. "Such vacancies exist across the state. This scheme is disappointing and lacks intent," he said.
He accused the state government of favouring corporate interests over those of farmers.
Citing the Tamil Nadu Land Consolidation (Special Projects) Act, 2023, Pandian alleged that private corporations were taking control of agricultural land and water bodies. "This is corporate slavery. Farmers who refuse to give up their land are facing police action," he charged.
The committee has threatened a black flag protest against state Food and Civil Supplies Minister R Sakkarapani if pending payments to paddy farmers are not cleared immediately. "Direct procurement was handled by governments for decades, but now a private player has entered the system, and corruption is rampant. Payments have been delayed for three months," Pandian said, demanding cancellation of the private firm's permit.
MSID:: 121493406 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Same-sex couples demand recognition as ‘spouses' in the IT Act to receive tax benefits
The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Attorney General of India on a petition seeking recognition of same-sex couples as 'spouses' under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition filed by two men, challenges the constitutional validity of the definition of the term 'spouse' in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, arguing that it discriminates against same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships. The petitioners, represented by advocates Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi along with Tejas Popat, Vishesh Malviya, Amandeep Mehta, and Aanchal Maheshwari, argued that they should not be denied benefits under the law solely because their partnership is not heterosexual. Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act deals with the taxation of money or property received without consideration. The fifth proviso carves out certain exemptions, including gifts or property received from a 'spouse.' The petitioners contend that by limiting this exemption only to heterosexual marriages, the provision indirectly discriminates against same-sex couples, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Parity with heterosexual couples While not entering into the merits at this stage, a Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla in an order passed on August 14, observed, 'Since the constitutional validity is challenged, we issue notice to the Attorney General of India returnable on 18th September 2025. We also direct the registry to issue notice to Respondent No. 2, returnable on 18th September 2025.' The petition also seeks, in the alternative, that the term 'spouse' be read to include same-sex couples, placing them at par with heterosexual couples for the purposes of the tax exemption. The Bench further said, 'The Writ Petition is filed to declare and hold that the term 'spouse' appearing in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) as unconstitutional inasmuch as it excludes the Petitioners from the scope and definition of the term 'spouse.' The declaration is also sought to extend the benefit of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the Petitioners who are in a long-term, stable same sex relationship.' In the alternative to prayer clause (a), the Bench observed that 'relief is sought that the term 'spouse' as used in the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act be read to include same sex couples like the Petitioners, and who according to the Petitioners, are in exactly the same position as heterosexual couples which would be presumed to be in a marriage.' The case is likely to be heard on September 18, 2025, when the Attorney General and the Union of India are expected to respond to the challenge.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Scrutiny of 43 forest rights claims done
Panaji: North Goa collector Ankit Yadav chaired a meeting of the district-level committee (DLC) on Monday where 43 claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act were taken up for screening. The claims were filed by villagers from Kopardem, Malpan and Satre in Sattari taluka. Of the 43 claims, the committee approved 29 while three were reverted back to the sub-divisional level committee for fresh scrutiny and verification. The committee rejected 11 applications as they were duplicate claims. The collector has been chairing one meeting every week since chief minister Pramod Sawant announced a fast-track schedule to clear pending claims. 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.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
INDIA bloc considering motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar
The INDIA bloc is considering a motion against Chief Election Commission (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, seeking his removal. The idea was mooted at the meeting of the Opposition's Parliamentary floor leaders on Monday (August 18, 2025). Parliament Monsoon Session: Follow updates on August 18, 2025 According to sources, the Opposition discussed whether it should continue with protests against the Election Commission, especially after the Supreme Court, in an interim order, directed the poll body to publish the details of 65 lakh voters excluded from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in poll-bound Bihar. The leaders concurred that after the CEC's Sunday (August 17, 2025) press conference, in which he accused the Opposition of 'spreading misinformation', the protests had to continue. Congress leaders suggested that the Opposition should step up the pressure by moving a motion against Mr. Kumar for making 'politically charged accusations.' Congress general secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal told The Hindu that there was a consensus in the INDIA bloc on the issue. 'He (Mr. Kumar) spoke not like the Chief Election Commissioner but like a BJP politician. In the entire press conference, he did not answer the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and the other parties. Instead, he ridiculed the Opposition for raising the questions,' he said. 'Is it the duty of the CEC to indulge in politics?' Mr. Venugopal, who said that the Opposition has enough numbers to move the motion, flagged the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides immunity to the CEC and Election Commissioners for all decisions taken by them in present and the past. He said that one should 'read between the lines' why such an immunity was extended. According to the Act, the CEC can be removed in the same manner and grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Parliament can dismiss the CEC by a motion with two-thirds majority in both the Houses. In order for the motion to be accepted, at least 50 members have to sign in its favour. Later in the day, the INDIA bloc leaders held a press conference to 'rebut' Sunday's (August 17, 2025) presser by the CEC. They flagged that the CEC failed to answer questions on why the SIR was being done in 'such a hurry' when the State elections were three months away. Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Ramgopal Yadav said that while the poll body asked Mr. Gandhi to give an affidavit, the SP had submitted affidavits with complaints of around 18,000 voters being removed from the list in 2022. 'In the 2022 Uttar Pradesh polls, when Akhilesh Yadav said names of SP supporters had been removed from the voter list, we gave affidavits. But no action has been taken,' he said. Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra said that if the voter list on which the last General Election was conducted was incorrect, the Lok Sabha should be dissolved. 'Is the list on which the Lok Sabha election was held fraudulent? If that is true, the current and previous Election Commissioners should be prosecuted, and this Lok Sabha should be dissolved immediately,' she said. Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Manoj Jha attacked the CEC and said, 'Yesterday we were looking for our CEC, we found a new BJP spokesperson.'
