No directives to make Hindi mandatory in official communications: Govt
Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said this in response to a written question from DMK MP Kalanidhi Veeraswamy, seeking to know whether the government has issued any directives making Hindi mandatory. "No, sir," the Minister responded.
Replying to a separate question from DMK MP Matheswaran VS seeking to know the funds spent on the promotion of Hindi since 2014, the Minister provided data that showed ₹736.11 crore has been incurred from the budget allocated to the Department of Official Language between 2014-15 and 2024-25.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Centre's proposed amendment to remove ministers from office: What SC has previously said on the matter
Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in Lok Sabha a significant constitutional amendment that seeks to remove a central or state Minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively. The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review. What does the amendment propose? The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively. These provisions will have a new clause: 'A Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody.' The removal can be reversed when the Minister is released from custody. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister will be in the ambit of the proposed law. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, there is a need for a legal framework for the removal of a Minister arrested on serious criminal charges. Ministers facing such allegations 'may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance', which could 'diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people'. The constitutional amendment will require a majority of two-thirds of Members present and voting to be passed. What is the current legal framework, and how does the Bill depart from it? Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent a certain time in custody. Ministers do not have qualifications that are distinct from those of legislators (with whom the RPA deals), but they have different responsibilities. In the RPA, the yardstick for disqualification is conviction by a court. The disqualification can be stayed if the conviction is stayed by a higher court on appeal. India's constitutional scheme envisages the presumption of innocence for the accused, and puts the onus of proving the charges on the prosecution. Police file a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, after which a court frames the charges. Trial begins after that, and can end in acquittal or conviction. In the proposed Bill, the yardstick for removal is 30 consecutive days of being 'arrested and detained in custody'. Since arrest and detention are only the preliminary step in a criminal investigation, such a yardstick raises serious questions of due process. What has been the debate on when a legislator can be disqualified? Given the serious concerns over the growing criminalisation of politics, a view has gained ground that a legislator must be disqualified even before the stage of conviction. It has been argued that the long wait for conviction defeats the purpose of disqualification. Since September 2013, only 27 sitting MPs and MLAs have been disqualified after being convicted of offences. However, constitutional principles of natural justice require a person to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before consequential action is taken against them. Also, disqualification impacts not only the rights of the legislator but also the will of the people who have elected the legislator. In its 170th report in 1999, the Law Commission of India proposed that the framing of a charge for offences punishable by up to five years' imprisonment should be made an additional ground for disqualification, which should be for five years or until acquittal, whichever was earlier. This proposal was reiterated by the Election Commission of India in 2004, and by the Law Commission in its 244th report in 2014. The Law Commission's 2014 report recommended that a legislator could be disqualified when charges were framed against them by a court, since this showed prima facie judicial satisfaction that there existed sufficient material against a person to put them to trial. The report rejected suggestions that the filing of a chargesheet by police or of a court taking cognizance of an offence against a legislator were appropriate stages for disqualification. Disqualifying a person before the 'application of judicial mind' would be 'against the principles of natural justice', and 'would mean that a person is penalised without proceedings being initiated against him', the Commission said. What has the Supreme Court said on the question of disqualification of a legislator? 🔴 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court discussed these recommendations in a 2018 judgment in a public interest litigation. The PIL by Public Interest Foundation had sought disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for serious offences. The court stated that it could not legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond what Parliament had provided. It reiterated that the power to make laws on disqualification rested solely with Parliament. The court did recommend, however, that Parliament should enact a 'strong law' making it mandatory for political parties to revoke the membership of those against whom charges have been framed for 'heinous and grievous offences', and to not give them tickets to contest elections. 🔴 Earlier, in its judgment in Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court had said there is no bar against a person with criminal antecedents being appointed as Minister. However, the court suggested that as the 'repository of constitutional trust', the Prime Minister should consider not choosing individuals with criminal antecedents, especially if charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or corruption. 🔴 More recently, the SC made some observations in two cases of Ministers facing money laundering charges — one, V Senthil Balaji of Tamil Nadu, and two, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. BALAJI was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in 2023 in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and remained in custody for 14 months. He was dropped as a Minister after significant pressure from the Governor and the opposition. In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted Balaji bail because the trial was likely to take several years. Within days of being released, Balaji was reinstated as a Cabinet Minister. The ED urged the SC to cancel his bail, arguing that from his position of authority, he might influence the case against him. The SC observed that it had not taken into account his ministerial position, as he had resigned before his bail application was heard. Once he was reappointed after being released, the court said it was misled. In April 2025, the court told Balaji to choose between 'freedom or post' — he could either resign or risk the cancellation of his bail. Days later, Balaji stepped down, and the court allowed his bail to continue. KEJRIWAL was granted bail in the alleged liquor policy money laundering case, but the SC barred him from signing official documents, entering government offices, and interacting with witnesses and accessing files connected with the case. The court, however, made it clear that it had no jurisdiction to compel an elected leader to step down; whether he should resign was left to Kejriwal's discretion. In September 2024, the court granted him regular bail, noting that prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial would be unjust. It refrained from issuing directions on his continuance in the office. Kejriwal voluntarily resigned soon afterward.
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Shortcut by law
Criminal law is the most direct expression of the relationship between a state and its citizens. Nowhere in the legal field is more at stake for the community or the individual. Unfortunately, 'crimes' originate in government policy and, therefore, criminal law reflects the idea of power rather than justice. The state, in its discretion, designates certain acts as crimes as per its electoral or other needs. It may decide to criminalise and decriminalise almost anything. Thus, Emperor Claudius of Rome, who wanted to marry his brother's daughter, procured an amendment to the crime of incest that permitted a marriage between a niece and her paternal uncle, leaving the law unaltered as to other marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. The criminal justice system is permeated by discretion, where the police have the power to arrest people even on mere suspicion. In 2022, 76 per cent of prisoners were under-trials. Can politicians who spend just 30 days in custody constitute a valid class protected by Article 14 to be treated differently? Can police powers not be used by central or state governments to get political leaders removed from their high constitutional offices? Can an arrest itself be converted into a punishment prior to conviction? These are legitimate questions that require public debate. Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, who, unlike Arvind Kejriwal, resigned on his arrest, had to spend some six months in custody on the allegations of a so-called land scam before the Jharkhand High Court concluded that in the 'overall conspectus of the case, there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar nature of offence'. Subsequently, the SC refused to interfere with Soren's bail order. As a result of his arrest, Soren could not campaign in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal, too, lost some seven weeks during the Lok Sabha elections, and when the SC granted him bail on May 10, 2024, just 18 days were available for him to campaign. With bail made extremely difficult under laws like the UAPA and PMLA, the provision is likely to be misused. The first step in the decriminalisation of politics should be to grant substantial autonomy to the CBI and ED with directors selected through consensus. Let people trust their investigation and the arrests they make. Without doing so, the removal or deemed resignation of a minister, PM or CM may lead to the misuse of the criminal justice system. Corruption in politics is a serious problem. The Vohra Committee (1993) was appointed by the Government of India to look into this issue, but we have not been able to make much progress. Lately, our politics has become devoid of ethics, and as a result, we see the willing embrace of and alliances with corrupt political leaders after leaders of a particular party have been publicly ridiculed. In ticket distribution, the autocratic high commands of all political parties reward such corrupt leaders, and very often, the 'winnability' of candidates is the only consideration. The Supreme Court has done a remarkable job in reducing political corruption through several landmark judgments. In Lily Thomas (2013), it barred convicted political leaders from contesting elections. In Jan Chaukidar (2004), it had even prohibited those in jail from contesting, but Parliament overturned this order. The UPA government did come up with an ordinance to overturn the disqualification of convicted political leaders, but Rahul Gandhi famously and publicly opposed the move. Years later, he was disqualified under that very law. The mischief that the three Bills propose to deal with is political corruption. In March 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary informed the Rajya Sabha that 'in the last 10 years, as many as 193 cases against politicians have been registered by the ED in which only two convictions (both former ministers from the Jharkhand government) have been made'. Of the total cases, 138 or a whopping 71 per cent have been registered in the last five years. There are reasons, therefore, to be apprehensive about the ED's credibility. Even the Supreme Court had expressed its anguish over the low conviction rates. If the NDA government intends to divert attention from the ongoing debate about the integrity of electoral rolls, the bills are a smart move, as the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill is unlikely to be passed because the ruling alliance does not have a two-thirds majority. Such reforms must ideally be preceded by consensus-building. Since the Opposition is against these bills, the BJP may create a narrative that it is trying to protect corrupt leaders. The inclusion of the PM, too, may be intended to score a political point, as years were lost in the debate on the Lokpal over the same issue. But finally, the UPA government's Lokpal Act, 2013, did include the PM (Section 14(1)(a). Under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 alone, about 181 sections (out of 358) provide for five years or more imprisonment. If special laws and local laws are added, this will go up drastically. Since criminal law's promise as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to destroy, let us not use it for petty political interests. Let us make bail a rule except in heinous violent crimes so that the new provisions have wider acceptability. The writer is vice chancellor of Chanakya National Law University. Views are personal
Hans India
30 minutes ago
- Hans India
Removal Of PM, CMs Jailed On Serious Charges: Chaos in LS as Shah tables 3 Bills
New Delhi: Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in the Lok Sabha three Bills for the removal of Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers under arrest for 30 consecutive days on serious charges, drawing fierce protests from Opposition MPs, who tore up copies of the draft law and marched close to his seat shouting slogans. In a charged atmosphere, several Opposition MPs spoke against the introduction of the Bills, claiming they violated constitutional principles, targeted federalism, turned the jurisprudence 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head, were open to misuse for political reasons and threatened to turn the country into a police state. Shah, however, batted for an enhanced standing for moral values in public life, saying, "We cannot be so shameless that we continue to occupy constitutional positions while facing serious charges". On his proposal, the Bills were sent by the House to a Joint Committee of Parliament, comprising 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha for scrutiny. The committee, whose members will soon be named, has been asked to submit its report to the House by the last day of the first week of the next session, expected in the third week of November. As soon as the Bills were introduced soon after 2 pm, Opposition members trooped into the well, raising slogans and some even tore copies in front of Shah for the sight to be captured by cameras broadcasting the home minister's remarks. A few BJP members, including Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ravneet Singh Bittu, stepped out of their seats to prevent Opposition members from coming near Shah and waved them to go back to their side of the aisle. When Congress MP K C Venugopal questioned Shah about his claim of public morality by referring to his arrest in a criminal case when he was the Home Minister of Gujarat in 2010, the senior BJP leader hit back. He said he wanted to set the record straight as he had resigned on moral grounds before his arrest on "false" allegations and did not join a constitutional position till he was discharged by the courts. "What are they (opposition) teaching us about morality? I had resigned. And I want moral values to rise. We cannot be so shameless that we continue to occupy constitutional positions while facing charges. I resigned before arrest," Shah said. Opposition MPs, including AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress' Manish Tewari and Venugopal, and RSP's N K Premachandran, spoke against the introduction, terming the proposed law against the Constitution and federalism. The Home Minister also said that the Bills will be sent to the Joint Committee of Parliament, where members of both Houses, including those from the Opposition, would get an opportunity to give their suggestions. The three Bills are the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill 2025; the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill 2025; and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill 2025. The constitutional amendment bill will require the support of at least two-thirds of the members in both Houses. The ruling alliance currently lacks such a majority on its own. The Bills have proposed that if Prime Minister, Union Ministers or Chief Ministers, are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years, they will lose their jobs on the 31st day. Demanding that Shah withdraw the Bills, Tewari said they were "squarely destructive" of the basic structure of the Constitution and turned the fundamental principle of the rule of law that a person is innocent till proven guilty on its head. The Bills give due procedure a go-by and make an investigating officer the "boss of Prime Minister of India", he asserted. The Congress MP said the proposed law distorts parliamentary democracy by undermining the will of the people through mere custody bereft of judicial determination. It also opens the door for political misuse by the state's instruments whose arbitrary conduct has been "frowned" upon by the Supreme Court, he added.
