Will be happy if Mohan Yadav as CM performs better than me: Shivraj Chouhan
Shivraj Singh Chouhan, a former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, made this statement while addressing a programme in his home district Sehore.
CM Mohan Yadav was the chief guest in the programme.
"I am not the one who would say I have done this and that. I will be happier if Mohan Yadav do better than me for the people of Madhya Pradesh," Shivraj Singh Chouhan said while addressing a public rally in Sehore.
Meanwhile, he also mentioned that his padyatra carried out in his hometown Budhni was presented in a 'wrong way'. He said that some mediapersons had made assessments on their own.
"But, let me make it clear that the party's instructions are important. Mohan Yadav is Chief Minister, and I am Union Agriculture Minister," he said.
Speaking further, Shivraj Singh Chouhan said that being a public representative, he must come to visit the people of his constituency, and it should not be interpreted otherwise.
"But some mediapersons tried to speculate that in another way which was totally wrong," the Union Minister said.
During his speech, which lasted nearly 20 minutes, Shivraj Singh Chouhan sounded critical of the media a few times, asserting that his Budhni Padyatra was presented in a wrong way, whereas he was committed to follow the party's instructions.
He was referring to a two-day 'Viksit Bharat Sankalp Padyatra' in the Vidisha constituency which was organised in May to highlight the welfare schemes of Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government.
Along with many of his supporters, his family members including son and daughter-in-law had also participated on the second day of padyatra.
However, according to sources, within the party, Shivraj Singh Chouhan's march was perceived as his personal endeavour to stay connected with his Lok Sabha constituency and the state where he was Chief Minister for more than 16 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
26 minutes ago
- Hans India
Presidential reference: 'Political solution' over rushing to SC, says Centre on Governor's delay
New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a "political solution" should be prioritised by the states over "rushing to the top court" when a Governor delays assent to Bills passed by the legislative Assembly. During the hearing on the Presidential reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution in the aftermath of the apex court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that not every problem needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. "Suppose a particular Governor is sitting over bills, there are political solutions. And such solutions are taking place, but it is not everywhere. It is not everywhere the state government rushes to the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister goes and requests the Prime Minister. The Chief Minister goes and meets the President," SG Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, said. "There are delegations that go and say, 'These Bills are pending, please speak to the Governor and have him decide one way or the other'. The issue can even be sorted out over the telephone,' Mehta added, suggesting that joint meetings between the CM, the PM, and the Governor could resolve such impasses. He argued that in the absence of an explicit timeline under the Constitution, the question arises whether the Supreme Court can lay one down, even if there exists sufficient justification. "There may be justifications, but justification does not confer jurisdiction," said SG Mehta, emphasising that such issues have existed in every state for decades, but "political maturity" has usually led to "political solutions" through meetings among constitutional functionaries. To lay down timelines for Governors to act on Bills, in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed limit, he contended, would violate the principle of separation of powers and lead to constitutional chaos. Terming separation of powers "a two-way street", SG Mehta said the Supreme Court never issues directions to a co-ordinate constitutional functionary, calling it a matter of "constitutional comity". He added that the apex court cannot prescribe how a constitutional functionary should exercise power, since the court cannot legislate. After CJI B.R. Gavai remarked that withholding assent indefinitely would render the legislature defunct, SG Mehta said the solution lay in a constitutional amendment, but until then, the political process was the way out. The five-judge special Bench, headed by CJI Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar, is set to advise the President on whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by a Governor on Bills is justiciable when Article 361 of the Constitution bars judicial review of gubernatorial actions. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court remarked that allowing a Governor to withhold assent to Bills without returning them to the state Assembly would place the functioning of an elected government at the "whims and fancies" of an unelected Governor. When SG Mehta said that if a Governor withholds assent, there is no obligation to return the Bill to the state Assembly for reconsideration, CJI Gavai remarked: "Would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeal? The government elected with a majority would be at the whims and fancies of the Governor." Mehta argued the Governor's power to withhold assent is meant to be exercised rarely and sparingly, only in extraordinary situations such as when a Bill is unconstitutional, repugnant, or violative of fundamental rights.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Why high GST rate on insurance is a bad idea
It is an idea that was floated by a senior minister in the Narendra Modi government after the 2024 Lok Sabha results. And it's getting closer to reality. HT reported on Thursday that the Union government has sent a proposal to the group of ministers in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council to do away with GST on insurance premiums for health and life insurance policies. From an 18% tax to no tax at all, this will provide significant relief to policyholders. The policy change, if implemented, will especially benefit taxpayers in the new tax regime. They are not entitled to any deductions in taxable income on account of expenses such as insurance premiums. Hopefully, this will free up some, even if little, disposable income for spending on other things and also help reduce the cost of insurance in the country. In fact, the government should make sure that insurance companies do not increase their premiums to neutralise the cost-saving effect of the possible abolition of GST on insurance premiums. The government should make sure that insurance companies do not increase their premiums to neutralise the cost-saving effect of the possible abolition of GST on insurance premiums. (@FinMinIndiaX via PTI) To be sure, it is eminently arguable that the move is aimed at affecting public perception rather than the macroeconomy at large. Insurance coverage, especially health insurance, is growing rapidly in India, especially among the middle classes. Taxing it at 18% was never a fair idea, given the fact that insurance is something one buys for a potential crisis. It is not a luxury or sin-spend. But should it have been made completely tax-free? There is a fine line between political populism and fiscal prudence, if not in tax collections, then in the idea of taxation itself. Creating tax-free goods and services categories can often erode the sanctity of the latter.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Data furnished in LS indicates low adherence to high security registration plates
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways stated in its reply to a question in the Lok Sabha that about 50% of registered vehicles across India are yet to be installed with High Security Registration Plates (HSRPs) even as Telangana's compliance status remains unavailable as the State is in the process of migrating to Vahan 4 database. Parliamentarians Asaduddin Owaisi and Dhanorkar Pratibha Suresh, the MoRTH stated that 20.16 crore of the 40.07 crore registered vehicles in the country have HSRPs. The remaining 19.91 crore, or 49.69%, are non-compliant with the HSRP norms, which were made mandatory to curb counterfeiting and enhance traceability. The ministry also stated that while the Central government is responsible for framing rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, the implementation of HSRP norms, which include fixing, deciding the price, as well as its distribution, is the prerogative of State and Union Territory governments. Telangana is the only State for which HSRP compliance data was not available and submitted in the reply on account of the migration to Vahan 4 platform. The ministry also acknowledged reports of counterfeit HSRPs being circulated in parts of the country. It cited specific provisions under Rule 50(1) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which require plates to have tamper-proof features such as chromium-based holograms, laser-branded serial numbers, and snap-lock fittings. Advisories have been issued to the State transport agencies or departments as well as manufacturers to prevent unauthorised production and distribution. On the issue of rural access and price disparities, the government clarified that it does not regulate the cost of HSRPs. This came in response to a query about higher plate prices in Maharashtra, where HSRP fee are reportedly more than double when compared to those in other States. States with some of the the lowest compliance percentages include Lakshadweep, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Madhya Pradesh. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir, and Assam reported higher compliance. In Telangana, there is confusion about fixing HSRPs to older vehicles. While the traffic police have embarked on a drive to ensure said number plates are affixed to vehicles, the Transport department is yet to issue orders mandating HSRPs on older vehicles.
