Govt's Gurjar quota panel meets without stakeholders
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The three-member panel, headed by parliamentary affairs minister Jogaram Patel, convened to discuss the possibility of including the 5% Most Backward Classes (MBC) quota for Gurjars in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule. The committee includes social justice minister Avinash Gehlot and minister of state for home Jawahar Singh Bedam.
Speaking to TOI, Patel said, "Samiti members were invited yesterday (Monday) to attend the meeting but somehow nobody turned up today.
I'm sure they will join the next meeting, which will be scheduled soon."
The samiti members' absence raised concerns about the consultation process. A samiti representative, speaking on condition of anonymity, cited last minute notice as the reason for their non-attendance.
"Most of our members are spread across the state. Such short notice made it logistically impossible to attend the meeting," the samiti member said.
"With the Aug 8 deadline approaching, we expect better coordination," the representative said, warning of "indefinite protests" if the deadline is missed.
The deadline stems from a June 8 Gurjar Mahapanchayat, where the state govt promised to address the community's demands within two months. Patel, however, downplayed timeline concerns, stating, "What matters is that the process has been initiated."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Nagpurian sculpts Saptamrittika Ganesh idol using soil of seven cities
1 2 Nagpur: Ganpati is considered the Lord of Arts. As this year's Ganeshotsav approaches, the work of crafting the beloved Bappa is in its final stages. One traditional artist, Suresh Pathak, has this year sculpted a Ganpati idol using soil from seven different cities, and named it Saptamrittika. With seven days remaining for Bappa's arrival, sculptors are giving final touches to idols. With no restriction on the sale of Plaster of Paris idols this year, both clay and PoP idols are available in the market. However, in a unique effort, Pathak has made Ganesh idols crafted from seven different types of soil, including soil from Vidarbha as well as from outside states. Pathak's creativity is attracting people's attention. A senior member of the traditional sculptors' association in the city, Pathak has always campaigned against the sale of PoP idols, specially as awareness has grown over the last few years. Against this backdrop, Pathak has this year created a Ganpati Bappa idol in natural colours using seven different types of soil. To create the Saptamrittika Ganpati, he has used soil of special colour and specific type from the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Pathak had crafted 100 idols of this type on an experimental basis, all of which were sold within no time. Some 50 idols of this type have been sent to Pune and 20 idols to Mumbai. Devotees have given a tremendous response to Pathak's unique Bappa. Pathak's is already preparing to go all out with his innovation next year, and take up production of Saptamrittika Bappa on a large scale. A few days ago, Pathak even presented an idol as a special gift to Union minister Nitin Gadkari, drawing effusive praise from him. Box: Soil used To create the Saptamrittika Ganpati, Suresh Pathak has used distinctive multicoloured soil from seven cities in three states of India. This includes yellow soil from Chhindwada and Adasi of Madhya Pradesh, dark coloured soil from Azamgarh of Uttar Pradesh, and distinctive, multicoloured soil from Rajura (Chandrapur), Andhalgaon (Bhandara), Yavatmal and Savargaon of Maharashtra. 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.
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.
