Urudhunai loan scheme launched for Adi Dravidars and Scheduled Tribes
Making the announcements during the Demands for Grants for the year 2025-26, the Minister said that the loans under this scheme would be provided, with the State government's subsidy, through co-operative banks.
He further said that training would be provided to 500 entrepreneurs to improve the participation of companies owned by Scheduled Castes/Tribes and SC/ST entrepreneurs in public procurement, at a cost of ₹50 lakh. He also announced a new Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (TAHDCO) commercial complex scheme at a cost of ₹15 crore, to allow SC/ST communities to kick start businesses in commercial complexes under the control of local bodies.
Mr. Mathiventhan said that SC/ST entrepreneurs, involved in highly technical industries, would be able to start their business immediately through the 'Plug and Play Industrial Parks', which would be set up at a cost of ₹115 crore.
The Minister said that a digital repository of dance and musical traditions of Adi Dravidar and Tribal communities would be created at a cost of ₹1 crore.
He further said the government would strive for equality in death for the communities by building crematoriums and buying special vehicles to transport mortal remains and creating a mobile application at a cost of ₹8 crore. Training would be provided to SC/ST community members pursuing studies in journalism and communication, he added.Department of Posts to tie up with retail chains, e-commerce platforms for parcel delivery
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NTCA limits tiger corridors to minimal requirement, multiple projects to benefit
In a volte-face less than a month after it affirmed before the Bombay High Court that the identification of tiger corridors must take cognizance of multiple scientific studies and parameters, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) issued a clarification yesterday, limiting the number of such corridors, primarily, to only 32 'least cost pathways' identified in 2014. Tiger corridors are vital wildlife pathways that connect tiger habitats, enabling animal movement, gene flow, and long term survival. Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, development projects requiring land in or around tiger reserves or corridors require statutory clearance from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL). Among the potential beneficiaries of the new limited definition of tiger corridors are Western Coalfields Limited (Durgapur open cast mines) and Lloyds Metals & Energy (Surajgarh iron ore mines) in Maharashtra. Asked about the turnabout, NTCA's inspector general (forests) Sanjayan Kumar, who issued the clarification in a letter to all state governments yesterday, declined to comment. While discussing the Western Coalfields mining project within a tiger corridor connecting the Tadoba-Kanhargoan-Tipeshwar forests in Maharashtra's Chandrapur district at the March 12 meeting of the SC-NBWL, a senior ministry official observed that projects that did not fall within the least cost pathways designated for tigers were being sent from Maharashtra even though such projects should not require SC-NBWL approval. Considering the same project at the 84th meeting of the SC-NBWL on June 26, the Director General (Forests) noted that 'Maharshtra alone is facing this issue' and the Environment Secretary said that the NTCA should 'clarify that the only the least cost pathways identified by them should be treated as tiger corridors.' But the NTCA was already issued notice by the Bombay High Court on June 25 in a case challenging the decision taken by the Maharashtra State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) on April 17 to send for SC-NBWL approval only those projects that fell within the least cost tiger pathways. Among the projects up for discussion at that SBWL meeting were two proposals requiring 9.5 sq km of forest land — mining of hematite from quartzite, systemic recovery of iron ore, and laying out of roadside conveyors — in Surajgarh mines run by Lloyds Metals & Energy in Gadchiroli's Etapalli. On July 25, in its affidavit before the Bombay HC, the NTCA cited a letter issued 'with the power conferred to it' under the Wildlife Act to Maharashtra in 2023 to reiterate multiple benchmarks for defining tiger corridors: * Protected Areas occupied by tigers, * Least cost pathways identified in 2014, * Corridors marked in Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) of each reserve, * Corridors identified by Wildlife Institute of India (WII) — 'Tiger corridors of eastern Vidarbha landscape' — in 2016, * Corridors identified by WII — 'Telemetry based tiger corridors of Vidarbha' landscape' — in 2021, and * Distribution of tigers based on quadrennial all-India Tiger Estimations (AITEs) At today's hearing, the NTCA modified that stand by placing on record the clarification it issued yesterday. This reduced the benchmarks for tiger corridors only to the 'least cost pathways' identified in its 2014 report and the ones recorded by tiger reserves in their individual TCPs. The exclusion of multiple WII studies and the robust AITE data has surprised many as the 2014 NTCA report itself cautioned that 'the corridors shown in this report are minimal requirement' and that 'alternative connectivities do exist in many areas' which 'need to be conserved.' In fact, the last month's affidavit said that the NTCA was 'in the process of the refinement of tiger corridors' based on the AITE data. 'It is unlikely that a refined corridor report will be released before the Maharashtra issues are settled unless the HC specifically asks for it,' said an Environment ministry official. The case will come up again after two weeks. This July, researchers from Nagpur-based LRC Foundation applied contemporary Circuitscape modelling, which reflects multiple probable paths of animal movement—not just the 'shortest route' – to come up with 192 corridors form a dense network across 10 central Indian states, enabling tiger movement across 30 tiger reserves and around 150 protected areas.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Whether President would seek SC opinion is her prerogative, says CJI
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Centre did not have to labour to persuade a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday to recognise an apparent constitutional fallacy in the two-judge bench's April 8 virtual directive to the President to seek SC's opinion on constitutional validity of a bill reserved for her consideration by a governor. The constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar appeared convinced by solicitor general Tushar Mehta's argument that the two-judge bench could not have used SC's Article 142 powers to step into the governor's shoes and grant deemed assent to 10 bills of Tamil Nadu. "These two directions - the President to seek opinion of SC and deemed assent - are fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional," Mehta said. SC fallaciously assumed that the President, the highest constitutional authority of India, lacks ability or wherewithal to ascertain constitutional validity of bills, which have been passed by an assembly but reserved for her consideration by the governor, he argued. CJI Gavai responded to his argument about such directions being hazardous for the stone-carved constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by saying, "If all the bills reserved for the President's consideration become part of Presidential Reference, SC will do no other judicial work except giving advisory opinions as each Reference has to be addressed by a bench of minimum five judges." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Telematics Will Shift Tech Into High Gear: 7 Projected Changes Over the Next 10 Years TechBullion Undo A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on Apr 9 said whenever a bill is reserved for the President's consideration on the ground of its patent unconstitutionality, "the President must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action. Therefore, as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this court in exercise of powers under Article 143 of the Constitution (and seek SC's opinion)". Mehta told the bench to take example of a case where the President obtains such opinion from SC on the constitutional validity of a bill and grants assent. With bill thus becoming an Act, as in the case of the Tamil Nadu bills which have been published in the gazette mentioning that SC has granted deemed assent, how would an HC or SC adjudicate its validity given the fact that it has become a law after the SC had already vetted its constitutionally validity? Steering clear of the maze of consequential constitutional complications that would emerge if SC engaged in pre-law stage vetting of validity of bills, the CJI said, "Whether the President would seek advisory opinion of SC under Article 143 is her sole prerogative." Mehta said Article 142 powers, exclusively given to SC to do complete justice by acting within the constitutional and statutory parameters, cannot be used to assume the role of another coordinate constitutional authority like governor. He said the Constitution wherever needed has provided the 'deemed' provision, and hence, it prohibits SC from reading in 'deemed assent' provision into the Constitution using the powers it enjoys under Article 142. On the President's last question - whether states could invoke Article 32 right to directly move SC seeking a mandamus to governor, Mehta said any federal dispute involving Centre and state(s); or state(s) and state(s), must be resolved politically or in the alternative, a suit under Article 131 can be filed in SC. However, he said he would take instructions from the President, whether she would still press for an opinion from SC on this issue and inform the bench on Tuesday.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
SC: Should courts stay passive if governor fails to discharge duties?
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday asserted that a governor's action on a bill passed by an assembly - withhold assent, return it to assembly or reserve it for President's consideration - is non-justiciable and the governor-state impasse over such issues must be resolved not in the Supreme Court but through the political mechanism, leading the apex court to ask should it remain passive if a governor fails to discharge his constitutional obligation. On the third day of the hearing, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar that there are hundreds of aspects that a governor examines while taking a decision on a bill and SC does not have the wherewithal to examine the validity of such considerations while arriving at a decision. This led the CJI to ask, "If a governor does not do what the Constitution mandates him to do and sits over a bill without taking a decision for years, should courts be powerless to examine such inaction? What will happen to the federal democratic set-up? What happens to the will of the people? And, what does an elected govt in a state do?" CJI calls for restraint, says judicial activism should not become judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism Justices Kant and Narasimha, also part of the five-judge bench, said, 'The court may not go into the aspect of why a governor takes a particular action on a bill. But if the governor does not take any action for a very long period, can the situation be remediless? If the aggrieved state moves SC, should it keep silent? There cannot be a vacuum in the Constitution.' Mehta said mere justification (on the grounds of a governor's inaction) does not give jurisdiction to the court to tinker with the Constitution and amend its provisions to provide a timeframe for a governor to mandatorily act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo 'There had been such impasses between governors and states. They were resolved through political statesmanship of the CM concerned, the PM and the President. Solutions have been found in the political set-up. If a timeframe is required to be prescribed for a governor to act on a bill, Parliament will decide,' he said. 'Every problem of the country need not have to be resolved by SC. The political set-up and heads of the other branches of governance are equally capable of resolving political issues through a collaborative exercise,' the SG said. The CJI asked, 'If SC, as custodian of the Constitution, finds a constitutional functionary refusing to discharge his/her functions without valid reasons, should it be powerless to act?' He, however, also emphasized the need for judicial restraint. 'Judicial activism should not become judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism. I have always said separation of powers must be respected,' Gavai said. Mehta said SC can interpret the Constitution and its provisions, but it cannot insert a timeline for governors to act on bills, which is impermissible given the rigid separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. He said the constitutional heads of each of the three organs must have deference to each other's core constitutional functions. He asked, 'If a trial in a criminal case is pending for decades and a person approaches the President saying justice has been denied to his son, should the President declare him innocent and end the trial? Can the legislature fix a timeline for the judiciary to complete a trial in a case?' 'Whether the governor should grant assent, withhold, return the bill to assembly or reserve it for President's consideration are all actions which are non-justiciable. There are no judicial standards by which the SC can test the validity of governor's action on Bills. SC does not have the wherewithal to decide the validity of political decisions,' the SG said. Mehta said India follows the principle of constitutional supremacy and the supremacy is neither with the legislature, executive or judiciary, all three operating in distinct spheres governed by the principles of separation of power. 'The National Judicial Appointments Commission was unanimously passed by Parliament and ratified by two-thirds of the state and yet it was struck down by SC terming the presence of a single member from the executive in the panel for selection of judges as an interference in judicial independence,' he said. Every organ has the freedom to operate independently in their respective core constitutional functions, Mehta said, adding that if the presence of one executive member was interference in judiciary, could SC have fixed a timeframe for a governor to take a decision on a bill when the Constitution was silent on it, he further argued. Mehta cited several provisions of the Constitution where the text provided for a time frame for taking action by constitutional authorities and concluded his arguments saying the silence of the Constitution on the deadline for a governor to take a call on legislations was deliberate and cannot be tinkered with by SC.
