Delhi Assembly To Introduce Gender-Neutral Terminology In Rule Book
New Delhi:
Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta on Monday said they are planning to make amendments to Rules of Procedure in accordance with the GNCTD (Amendment) Act.
Addressing a press conference, Gupta said they are planning to make amendments to Rules Of Procedure and make them at par with Parliament.
The senior leader also said that Rule 280 of the Rules of Procedure will be reviewed and amended to align with the practices of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, in accordance with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) (Amendment) Act, 2021.
The review will also focus on simplifying legislative language and introducing gender-neutral terminology, he said.
Gupta said the amendment in the GNCTD Act in 2023 did not alter the way the house functions in or impose any restrictions on the working of the assembly committees.
"There have been allegations that the Assembly committees cannot examine CAG reports or summon officers, but the powers of the committees have not been reduced," he said.
"The previous government used to summon officials in routine matters. The assembly committees -- privileges committee and the petitions committee-- can call officials and seek explanation in case of a complaint and also look into CAG reports," he added.
He said that a draft is ready and the first meeting of the Rules Committee will be held on June 5.
The review will also focus on simplifying legislative language and introducing gender-neutral terminology, reflecting the Assembly's commitment to inclusivity, clarity, and equality in its operations.
The Eighth Delhi Assembly is approaching its 100th working day on June 4.
Gupta said a special report-card is being prepared to document the milestones, decisions, and reforms undertaken and will be presented on June 6.
He said two new committees have been constituted -- the Committee on the Welfare of Senior Citizens and the Committee on the Welfare of Transgenders and Persons with Disabilities.
"These committees are aimed at strengthening the institutional framework for addressing the concerns of marginalised groups. The rules governing their structure and functioning will be placed before the Rules Committee for detailed review and recommendations," he added.
Best practices from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will be studied and incorporated to ensure effectiveness and alignment with national standards, he added.
He also said the six long-pending reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were tabled in the House during this period. To strengthen audit follow-up mechanisms, the Assembly is developing a dedicated Audit Para Monitoring System (APMS) mobile application.
This digital tool will enable real-time tracking of audit recommendations, improve compliance, and enhance financial oversight, he added. The last amendment to the Rules of Procedure were made in 2017.
Last month, former chief minister Atishi had written to Gupta and said that the public accounts committee does not have the authority to examine CAG reports on public health, liquor supply and vehicular air pollution.
Gupta also said that Rule 280 was not clearly defined and was sometimes used by members for "vested" interests. While he did not mention any party, AAP hit out at him saying it was strange that a person who used every opportunity during last 10 years to disrupt Delhi Legislative Assembly is pointing fingers at others.
"Mr Vijender Gupta is the same person who embarrassed his whole party, who stood on the desk of Legislative Assembly during its session. Mr Gupta should use his office to fulfill his promise to Bus Marshals about permanent jobs," the AAP said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When judges face impeachment: V Ramaswami to Soumitra Sen, what happened in each of the 5 cases
The Centre is likely to bring in an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament next month. An impeachment motion against a judge is a rare occurrence. There have been attempts to move the motion against judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts only five times since Independence, with Parliament debating only two of those motions, while the rest either failed to get the support of the required number of MPs or were rejected. Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which deals with this issue, says, 'A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.' Here is a look at the five instances when motions were brought to impeach judges. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami was the first sitting judge of the Supreme Court to face impeachment for alleged financial misconduct during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Lok Sabha debate on impeaching him took place on May 10 and 11 that year. CPI(M)'s Bolpur MP Somnath Chatterjee moved the motion in the Lok Sabha. 'This is a constitutional obligation, not a political witch-hunt. We are seeking to maintain the dignity of the highest judiciary. Let it be known to the nation and to the world that this House, this Parliament, can rise to its responsibilities under the Constitution,' he said. Acknowledging that MPs 'were not judges', Chatterjee said the House was called upon to act 'with objectivity and seriousness of judges'. 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions. My appeal once again to all my fellow Members is that the time has come when we must stand up for certain values and norms,' he said. Lauding Ramaswami's counsel Kapil Sibal, who defended the Supreme Court judge in Parliament, Chatterjee said he hoped Ramaswami would resign. 'Yesterday, his counsel advocated very strongly that this House should not vote on this particular motion. His plea was: 'Please do not vote on this motion.' After the debate was over, I walked over to him and said: 'You made an excellent suggestion. Why do you not take it one step further and persuade your client to resign?'' Chatterjee concluded, saying, 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions.' Supporting the motion, BJP's Chittorgarh MP Jaswant Singh said it was the first exercise where 'legislators were called upon to don a judicial role'. 'What we do or fail to do today will become archival material, to be referred to by successive generations of legislators. The fate of this motion is directly linked with the moral health of the nation … The motion of impeachment is a safeguard of the State. It restrains judicial tyranny without overawing the authority of the courts. I asked myself: Is this, on the findings of the Committee, sufficient to conclude misbehaviour? My answer is yes. Is it proven? Yes. Does it warrant removal? Yes. To reject this motion would be to condone misbehaviour in the judiciary; it would taint and enfeeble the nation,' he said. The Janata Dal MP from Muzaffarpur, George Fernandes, said he hoped that the debate would be the' beginning of a cleansing process, in which we must uphold the rule of law, uphold the basic norms and values — especially if we want to combat the growing violence and corruption in this country'. The Congress opposed the motion, with its MP Mani Shankar Aiyar saying the 108 members who moved the motion 'were not a cross-section of the House'. 'They were drawn from parties that numerically did not constitute a majority … That is perfectly legal, maybe even moral, but this must be borne in mind … At a time when even my eleven-year-old daughter knew that the Ninth Lok Sabha was going to end, they decided to bring this issue forward as their electoral platform,' he said. Claiming that the House was not even being given 16 hours to consider the matter, Aiyar said, 'Whether we pass this motion or reject it, we are doing great damage to our nation. We are paying for the sins of the dying days of the Ninth Lok Sabha.' Another Congress MP, Debi Prasad Pal, questioned the legitimacy and transparency of the committee process. The motion fell through after most Congress MPs abstained and it failed to get a two-thirds majority. Of the 401 MPs in the House, 205 abstained while 196 voted in favour of the motion. The impeachment proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court took place in the Rajya Sabha. Sen was accused of misappropriating funds in his role as a court-appointed receiver and of misleading the court even after his elevation to the Bench. The Rajya Sabha took up the motion on August 17–18, 2011, following the findings of an inquiry committee headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Mukul Mudgal, and jurist Fali Nariman. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) moved the motion, saying it was 'not one questioning the integrity of the judiciary but against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour'. 'It is a call of duty to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith (in the judiciary). Let us convey not only to the people of India but to the people of the world that the Indian Parliament is a sacred temple — the perpetual residence of inviolable justice,' he said. Then Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, spoke in support of the motion. 'The cheques can't lie; individuals can. This is a fit case for removal, and we must so make a recommendation to the President,' he said. Saying he had come to seek justice on 'not only questions of law but also on questions of facts', Justice Sen defended himself in the House. 'The concept of presumption of innocence has now been reversed into a presumption of guilt … Even if you hold me guilty and remove me, I will still shout from the rooftops that I did not misappropriate the money … This entire matter is being driven by assumptions and political will, not law or facts,' he said. In reply, Jaitley said, 'This misappropriation will hang like an albatross around your neck even when you shout from rooftops that you're innocent … Can we afford to have a judge whose conduct smacks of this kind of proven misconduct?' The Upper House passed the motion and Justice Sen became the first sitting judge to have an impeachment motion against him passed by a House of Parliament. He subsequently resigned and then Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid told the Lok Sabha on September 5, 2011, that further discussion on the matter was not required and the Lower House did not get to discuss or vote on the matter. More than 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion seeking the removal of Justice S K Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court over charges of sexual harassment by a former district and sessions judge in Gwalior. The motion was dropped after an inquiry committee did not find enough material against the judge. Over 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion to impeach Justice Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over charges of physically assaulting a judge of a lower court. However, the motion was dropped after nine MPs withdrew, and it fell short of the minimum 50 MPs required to introduce the motion. Opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha, including the Congress, (then undivided) NCP, SP, BSP, and CPI(M), submitted the motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in April 2018, alleging 'misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. On April 23 that year, the then Rajya Sabha chairman, M Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the motion saying that the charges pertained to internal court administration and did not amount to constitutional 'misbehaviour'.
India Gazette
37 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"May love and understanding fill our hearts and unite us all": Rahul Gandhi extends wishes on Eid-al-Adha
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): Congress MP and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi on Saturday extended greetings on the occasion of Eid-al-Adha In a social media post on X, Gandhi wrote, 'Eid Mubarak to everyone! May love and understanding fill our hearts and unite us all.' Earlier today, Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted people on the occasion of Eid ul-Adha, and called for the occasion to 'inspire harmony and strengthen the fabric of peace in our society.' 'Best wishes on Eid ul-Adha. May this occasion inspire harmony and strengthen the fabric of peace in our society. Wishing everyone good health and prosperity,' his post on X read. President Droupadi Murmu also extended her best wishes on the occasion. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju wished people on the occasion, posting his greetings in Urdu, he said, 'Happy Eid al-Adha! Heartfelt congratulations to all Muslim brothers and sisters on the occasion of Eid al-Adha.' Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge also wished people, calling on them to unite and foster a stronger bond to work towards a peaceful, harmonious, and just society. 'Eid al-Adha celebrates the noble values of selfless sacrifice, trust, and forgiveness. As we celebrate this joyous occasion, may we all unite to foster stronger fraternity and work towards a peaceful, harmonious, and just society. Eid Mubarak!' Kharge's post said. As people across the country celebrate Eid, multiple dargahs and mosques were filled with people offering prayers early in the morning. In Mumbai, people offered Namaz at the Jama Masjid Mahim Dargah, while in Delhi, at the first light of dawn, people turned to the Jama masjid to offer their prayers. The air echoed with chants of 'Eid Mubarak,' as families, young and old, embraced and celebrated the spirit of sacrifice and compassion that the festival symbolises. Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, commemorates the willingness of Prophet Ibrahim to sacrifice his son in obedience to God. The day is marked by prayers, charitable acts, and the ritual sacrifice of animals, with a message of sharing and empathy at its core. The date changes every year, as it's based on the Islamic lunar calendar, which is about 11 days shorter than the Western 365-day Gregorian calendar. Eid al-Adha is called Id-ul-Adha in Arabic and Bakr-Id in the Indian subcontinent, because of the tradition of sacrificing a goat or 'bakri'. It is a festival that is celebrated with traditional fervour and gaiety in India. (ANI)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Democratic states strengthen laws to counter Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let any aggrieved person sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the US Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the US illegally and detain them for potential deportation. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the US Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to USD 50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a sanctuary state, asserting that law officers remain deeply committed to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws, Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 US Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or exigent circumstances. Maryland Del Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community regardless of their background feel safe and comfortable, Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome, said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible. Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was injecting partisan immigration policies into schools. We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away, said state Sen Marie Alvarado-Gil. Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
