Tamil Nadu government offers support to families in Delhi's Madrasi Camp who wish to return to their native districts
The Tamil Nadu House in New Delhi has been tasked with actively facilitating and overseeing coordination efforts.
'Reaffirming its unwavering commitment to the welfare of persons of Tamil Nadu origin residing outside the State, the Tamil Nadu government is in active coordination with the residents of Madrasi Camp to ensure that every possible support is extended to them without any delay,' the release added.
The Madrasi Camp is a settlement comprising 370 slum dwellings and is predominantly inhabited by persons of Tamil Nadu origin.
The Delhi HC directed that eligible residents be rehabilitated and relocated under the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Act and the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board has determined that 215 out of the 370 residents are eligible for allotment. Accordingly, these eligible beneficiaries have been allotted residential units under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) located in Narela, Delhi.
Furthermore, all legal petitions filed by the residents of Madrasi Camp have been adjudicated and disposed of by the Delhi HC on May 9, and the order mandated the commencement of demolition activities at Madrasi Camp on June 1.
All legal avenues available to the residents of Madrasi Camp for retaining the unauthorised constructions at the site have been duly exhausted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
No Tax for Americans? Here's what Donald Trump's new tax break means for taxpayers in USA?
USA Senate has unanimously passed the " No Tax on Tips " Act. However, the tax break is being incorporated into the "One, Big, Beautiful" budget bill being negotiated by House Republicans, which would be effective from 2026 through 2028, as per a report. The federal tax code requires that every tip be reported as income. In the tax code and in this legislation, the term "cash tip" applies to tips given in bills and coins, on a credit or debit card, or via the business' electronic payment system. It has not yet been determined whether tips that go directly to a server via a service like Venmo or PayPal would qualify as cash. Service charges, which are legal in some places, are added by the business and do not count as tips, according to NYT News Service. No Tax on Tips by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like बैंगलोर में बिक्री के लिए विला (कीमतें जांचें) Villas for Sale in Benglore Undo Under the legislation being negotiated in the House, tip income would be exempt from federal income taxes. That amount would be subtracted from reported income as an "above the line" deduction on a tax return. That would reduce how much income tax is owed. The tips would still have to be tracked and reported, NYT News Service reported. There is debate over who would benefit from the measure, which applies to all tipped workers in the restaurant business, including not only servers but also baristas, food delivery drivers and anyone holding out a payment screen after they have sold you food. According to government data, there are more than 2 million tipped restaurant workers in the United States. Live Events It would put more money in the pockets of tipped workers, like servers and bartenders, who interact directly with customers. Those employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 in tips, unless they earned more than $160,000 in a year. (The amount will rise over time.), as per NYT News Service report. FAQs Q1. Has the USA passed 'No Tax on Tips' Act? A1. The USA has passed the 'No Tax on Tips' Act. Q2. Who is President of USA? A2. President of USA is Donald Trump .
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Parliament's Monsoon session from July 21; Oppn demands special session
The Monsoon session of Parliament will be held from July 21 to August 12, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said on Wednesday. The minister said the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs, led by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, has recommended the dates, which will be sent to the President for convening the session. The INDIA bloc Opposition parties have demanded a special session to discuss Operation Sindoor. In a post on X, Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh said that normally the dates for a Parliament session are announced a few days in advance, but 'never have the dates been declared 47 days before a session is due'. Ramesh accused the government of announcing the Monsoon session dates much in advance 'to run away from the demand being made repeatedly' by the Opposition for 'an immediate special session to discuss the brutal Pahalgam attacks and the failure to bring the terrorists who did the killings themselves to justice, the impacts of Operation Sindoor and its blatant politicisation, the revelations of the CDS [Chief of Defence Staff] in Singapore, the hyphenation of India and Pakistan, the embedding of China in the Pakistan Air Force, the continuous claims of President Trump on mediation, and the numerous failures of our foreign policy and diplomatic engagements.' However, Rijiju said, 'Every session is a special session for us.' He added that under the rules, 'all important matters' can be discussed during the Monsoon session. The business advisory committees of both Houses will decide the issues to be taken up. The minister also said the government is committed to taking all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, adding that corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a 'political prism'. He said the government wants the exercise to remove Justice Varma—embroiled in a case of alleged corruption and indicted by a Supreme Court-appointed committee—to be a 'collaborative effort'. Rijiju said he would reach out to smaller parties, while all major parties had already been informed of the plan to bring a motion of impeachment. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in either House, the Speaker or the Chairperson, as the case may be, must constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal—popularly known as impeachment—is sought. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts, and a 'distinguished jurist'. Rijiju said the present case is 'slightly different' as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. 'So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call,' he said. The minister added that the process must be followed, but how to 'integrate the inquiry already conducted' needs to be decided. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O'Brien on Wednesday posted on X that the government is avoiding a special session, terming it 'Parliamentophobia (noun)', which he described as the acute condition of a government suffering from a morbid fear of facing Parliament. Speaking to reporters later, he said the government's announcement came a day after Opposition parties wrote a joint letter demanding a special session of Parliament. 'TMC has studied past announcements, and usually, the session is announced around 20 days ahead of the date of commencement. This time, they announced it 45 days ahead,' O'Brien said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Ahead of 2026 election, how can DMK retain credibility and control the narrative?
The verdict in the Anna University sexual assault case — the Mahila Court sentenced 37-year-old biryani vendor Gnanasekaran to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years — marks a significant moment of judicial clarity. Examining forensic evidence, including mobile data that proved the accused had kept his phone on 'flight mode' for over two hours during the crime, the court dismissed speculation of multiple perpetrators. In fact, the judge found Gnanasekaran guilty under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technology (IT) Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act (1998) — a verdict arrived at without political interference or procedural delay. However, legal closure rarely halts political rumour. Even as the public prosecutor warned that continued speculation could amount to contempt of court, the phrase 'Yaar Andha Sir?' ('Who is that sir?') has already entered political discourse, largely due to insinuations by AIADMK leaders and an opportunistic digital echo chamber. The truth, it seems, is not what is proved in court but what sticks in public memory. Ironically, the DMK government, often accused of political micro-management, allowed this case to move swiftly through an autonomous legal process. In a state where past sexual assault cases, like the Pollachi scandal, were delayed or allegedly mishandled, notably under the AIADMK's watch, this is not insignificant. Nevertheless, the opposition has deftly turned the DMK's early assertion that there was only one accused into a point of political attack, calling it 'prejudgement' and 'potential cover-up'. This episode reveals the broader question facing the DMK as it heads toward the 2026 assembly elections: How does the party retain credibility and control the narrative? The DMK's record over the last four years is, in many ways, better than its predecessors. Schemes centred around school-going children, women, and the youth have received appreciation. Other schemes like Illam Thedi Kalvi, Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam, and grievance redressal initiatives have improved state–citizen interaction, especially in rural Tamil Nadu. The government's efforts in resisting NEET, symbolically potent even if legally ineffective, have bolstered its pro-social justice image. Investments in government schools, Primary Health Centres (PHCs), and digital governance platforms also signal policy intent that is not merely rhetorical. However, the government's challenges are far from trivial. Tamil Nadu's graduate unemployment (16.78 per cent) remains uncomfortably high, and industrial job creation has failed to keep up with expectations. Chennai's chronic flooding and waste management failures have not seen systemic solutions, and the DMK's urban governance, while more responsive than before, lacks long-term vision. Add to this the unfolding TASMAC controversy, a potentially damaging scandal involving liquor procurement irregularities and alleged revenue manipulation. For many Tamil households, especially among the working poor, TASMAC is more than a public sector enterprise; it is a source of everyday distress. Women-led protests and growing anger around alcoholism have sharpened the moral critique of the government's alleged role in enabling addiction under the guise of revenue generation. Besides, actor-turned-politician Vijay's debut through Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam seems to have disrupted the Dravidian binary in a way few thought possible. Unlike fringe players like Seeman's NTK, Vijay carries an immense fan base and strong recall across age groups. His youth appeal and calculated distance from Hindutva politics make him formidable. Vijay has carefully crafted his messaging: anti-corruption, pro-education and socially inclusive. By not aligning with either Dravidian major or the BJP, he is attempting to occupy the unclaimed centre, a space attractive to urban, educated, and politically ambivalent first-time voters. If TVK contests all 234 seats, it may not win many outright, but it could split votes in enough constituencies to damage both DMK and AIADMK prospects. Meanwhile, the AIADMK is trying to regain lost ground under Edappadi K Palaniswami. While the party remains factionalised without a charismatic face, it still commands a sizeable rural base. Its attempts to link the Anna University case to a larger narrative of DMK complacency may not be grounded in evidence, but they are politically shrewd. In alliance with the BJP, the AIADMK hopes to capitalise on any anti-incumbency sentiment. However, this strategy remains fraught with risk: Tamil Nadu's electorate have consistently displayed a deep-rooted scepticism towards the BJP, viewing it as hostile to Tamil identity and interests, a perception that remains firmly embedded in the state's political consciousness. What must the DMK do, then? First, it must address the TASMAC issue head-on through transparency, audits, action against corruption, and a clear plan to reduce reliance on alcohol revenue. Second, the party must move beyond legacy rhetoric toward forward-looking governance. Digital skills training, green jobs, women's safety, and urban renewal should define its new language of social justice. Most crucially, it must seize control of the narrative. Though legally closed, the Anna University case remains a battle of perception. If the DMK stays reactive, allowing its record to be drowned out by slogans and suspicion, it risks ceding the larger electoral script. In Tamil Nadu, politically sharp and emotionally engaged voters expect more than performance; they demand trust, which is earned constantly. The DMK seems to have a strong chance in 2026. Stalin remains a credible leader, and the party's organisation is solid. But election results depend not just on incumbency or ideology but on timing, tone, and trust. The path to Fort St. George lies as much through governance as through the people's imagination. And in that realm, the verdict is never final. It is constantly being rewritten, tweet by tweet, poster by poster, speech by speech. The court may have ruled on Gnanasekaran. But in the court of public opinion, the DMK must still argue its case every single day, until the ballot speaks. The writer is an education consultant and political analyst based in Bengaluru
