Minister Sanjeev Arora, RS MP Vikramjit Sahney hails approval of semiconductor unit in Mohali
Chandigarh: The Union cabinet on Tuesday approved the expansion of Continental Device India Private Limited's (CDIL) semiconductor manufacturing facility in Mohali under the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM), as part of four new projects cleared across the country.
Punjab industries minister Sanjeev Arora said that the Centre has sanctioned semiconductor manufacturing units in Punjab, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh with a total outlay of ₹4,600 crore. One of these projects includes CDIL's brownfield expansion at its existing Mohali facility.
Welcoming the move, Rajya Sabha MP Vikramjit Singh Sahney reiterated his long-pending demand to upgrade the Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL) in Mohali. He recalled that the Centre had already announced a ₹76,000 crore package in 2024 for the development of India's semiconductor and display manufacturing ecosystem, of which ₹10,000 crore was earmarked for modernising SCL Mohali.
'Unfortunately, no progress has been made so far in this regard. The state's full potential in the semiconductor value chain can only be realised with this long-awaited upgradation,' Sahney said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC asks Centre to respond if X Corp ought to be part of Sahyog portal
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to respond to its query on whether social media platform X Corp . ought to be unexceptionally part of the Sahyog portal in cases involving human trafficking , child trafficking and national security-related issues. The court has asked the Centre to file its reply by September 10, addressing specifically this issue as well as a plea moved by X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, seeking discharge from the proceedings of a case and placing its opposition to come on board the Sahyog portal, which is managed by the home ministry's Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (IC4). "Let the Union of India file its reply to the present application, addressing the specific issue i.e. as to whether in cases involving human trafficking, child trafficking and serious matters such as drug trafficking and national security-related issues are concerned, the applicant X Corp. ought to be unexceptionally part of the SAHYOG portal. Let the reply be filed by September 10, 2025," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma has said. The high court, in its August 12 order, took note of the challenge by X Corp. to the entire concept of the Sahyog portal and that its coming on board the portal is pending before the Karnataka High Court. However, the judgment is stated to be reserved. Sahyog, the government says, was developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under the IT Act to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act. The portal aims to bring together all authorised agencies and intermediaries on one platform to ensure immediate action against unlawful online information. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking directions to authorities to produce her 19-year-old son who has been missing since January 10, 2024. While dealing with several habeas corpus petitions, the court noticed that there was a "lag" between the seeking of information by police and the receipt of the same from various social media platforms. The court made it clear that the application of X Corp. arises in a habeas corpus petition, where there is a missing child, and the cooperation to be tendered by intermediaries and their participation in the SAHYOG portal is being considered from that perspective. X Corp. has sought its discharge from the present proceedings, citing its cooperation, and said its petition against the Sahyog portal is pending in the Karnataka High Court, which has reserved the judgment. The court observed that there was no impediment in hearing X Corp. as the Karnataka High Court has not passed any such order. The Centre's counsel had said while X Corp. moved the Karnataka High Court, 64 intermediaries had come aboard the Sahyog portal and the home ministry's IC4 had sent requests to others to follow suit. The counsel had urged the court to direct the remaining intermediaries to join the portal expeditiously. In a status report filed in the matter, the Centre had also said that more than 1,100 entities, including internet service providers, Facebook, WhatsApp and Microsoft, have joined the "API integrated system" for instantaneously sharing data. It had added that the system was at the testing and production stage and all states and Union territories had appointed nodal officers for the Sahyog portal. The report had said 33 "Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers" had also joined the portal.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
CM Siddaramaiah: 10 years of Act, changes in lives of SC/STs not up to mark
Citing an evaluation done by the Institute for Social and Economic Change on the implementation of SCSP/TSP Act, he said Karnataka is ahead of other states in various criteria. In all, 39 taluks with a high population of SC/STs have been identified and a survey conducted to identify education, health, living standards and poverty eradication in these areas, he informed. 'As per the Act, a minimum of 24.1% of the grant has to be allocated every year, but during 2019-20, lesser amount was released (during the BJP rule),' he said. He said the Act's implementation should be reviewed as its purpose is to allocate a budget proportionate to SC/ST population, improve their social and economic conditions, standard of living and develop housing. Last year, Rs 38,793 crore was released for SCSP/TSP welfare programmes, of which Rs 38,717 crore was spent, achieving 97% success. The Centre was expected to release Rs 880 crore, but did not, he said. He instructed officials to get the fund released. 'This year, Rs 42,017.51 crore has been allocated. An action plan should be formulated to spend this grant effectively. Negligent officers should be punished,' he added.
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
