Protest in Kargil for Ladakh statehood, inclusion in 6th Schedule
Describing the fresh agitation as a historic day for Ladakh's movement, Wangchuk accused Lt Governor Kavinder Gupta of plotting to arrest him. 'My well-wishers told me that I will be charged with sedition. When I didn't fear sitting on a hunger strike at minus 40 degrees at Khardung La Pass, why should I fear jail. It will only strengthen the Ladakhi agitation,' he said.
Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) organised the march in protest against the alleged delay in resuming the dialogue process by the Centre to discuss the demands of the Ladakh people.
KDA functionaries warned of serious consequences if any of their members and Wangchuk were arrested. It was the first such protest march since Gupta entered LG office on July 18.
On Jan 2, 2023, Union home ministry set up a high-powered committee to address key issues in Ladakh. The last round of talks, held on May 27, led to the introduction of a domicile policy for Ladakh with a 15-year eligibility period starting from 2019.
Since the abrogation of Article 370 on Aug 5, 2019, and the bifurcation of the erstwhile state of J&K into two UTs, Ladakh has seen many political agitations seeking statehood for Ladakh and inclusion in Sixth Schedule.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court flips Centre's reference to Constituent Assembly debates on time limit for President to decide on Bills
The Union government is banking on the historic Constituent Assembly debates about the draft Constitution of India to prove the President is not fettered by specific time limits while granting assent to Bills or proposed laws. But the Supreme Court has flipped the argument by presenting a different perspective. Arguing before a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, delved into the pages of the Constituent Assembly debates of May 20, 1949. Mr. Mehta showed to the court how a proviso in draft Article 91, which dealt with the President's power to assent to Bills and currently embodied in Article 111 of the Constitution, had originally mandated a time limit of six weeks for Presidents to return Bills they do not agree with to Parliament. The proviso to draft Article 91 had originally read 'that the President may, not later than six weeks after the presentation to him of a Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill to the Houses…' The Solicitor General detailed that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had intervened that day to substitute the term 'six weeks' with the phrase 'as soon as possible' in the proviso of draft Article 91. 'Thus, the specific time limit which was provided for in the Draft Constitution for providing assent, was deleted by the Constituent Assembly… The highest Executive may not be bound by the time limit of six weeks to decide on a Bill presented to her for assent… We have always followed the principle that the highest constitutional functionary, the President, will discharge duties in accordance with the law,' Mr. Mehta argued. But the Chief Justice viewed the debate from a different angle. For one, the CJI pointed out that a time limit was indeed contemplated by the founding mothers and fathers of the Indian Constitution. Justice Vikram Nath added that even the Constitutional Advisor, Shri B.N. Rau, had recommended six weeks for the President in the draft Constitution. Secondly, Chief Justice Gavai pointed out that the phrase 'as soon as possible' was inserted in relation to 'six weeks', which was considered a reasonable time for the President to take a call on Bills. 'The decision in the Constituent Assembly debates on August 20 appears to be that the President has to decide within a reasonable period… Hence, the phrase ' as soon as possible',' Chief Justice Gavai remarked. The Chief Justice, after going through the debates, found that some of the speakers in the Constituent Assembly debate on draft Article 91 had found even six weeks 'too long'. 'One of the speakers during the discussion suggested 'as soon as possible' but not later than six weeks,' Chief Justice Gavai had addressed the Solicitor General. The Chief Justice was referring to speakers like Naziruddin Ahmad on the Constituent Assembly who suggested the phrase 'as soon as may be possible' instead of 'as soon as possible' to give the President 'reasonable latitude' while dealing with the question of assent to Bills placed before her. Another Constituent Assembly speaker, P.S. Deshmukh, did not agree with Dr. Ambedkar's stand to replace 'six weeks' with 'as soon as possible', saying that the former would prompt the President to fulfil his duty to 'indicate his decision as early as possible and in no case later than six weeks'. The five-judge Bench is answering a Reference issued by the President under Article 143 on whether timelines could be imposed on the President/Governors through a judicial order. The Reference was issued merely a month after a Division Bench of the Supreme Court directed that the President and Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills and have to take a call in three months.
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
Ex-SC judge B Sudershan is Oppn's VP candidate
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy is the joint candidate of the Opposition parties for the Vice-Presidential polls, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge announced on Tuesday, as he called the upcoming election for the country's second-highest office an "ideological battle". Reddy is a former judge of the Supreme Court and the first Lokayukta of Goa. He is also on the Board of Trustees of the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre in Hyderabad. "All Opposition parties have decided to have a common candidate; the decision has been taken unanimously. I am happy that all opposition parties have agreed on one name. It is a big achievement for democracy," Kharge said. "Whenever democracy and the Constitution are under attack, Opposition parties unite to fight against it. So we have decided to field a good candidate in this election," he said. "He has had a long and eminent legal career, including as Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and Judge of the Supreme Court. He has been a consistent and courageous champion of social, economic and political justice," he said. "He is a pro-poor man, and in many of his judgments... he favoured the poor people and also protected the Constitution and fundamental rights," the Congress chief flanked by various opposition leaders including NCP-SP leader Sharad Pawa, CPI-M's M A Baby, TMC's Derek O'Brien, DMK's Tiruchi Siva and SP's Dharmendra Yadav said. O'Brien later said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had recently left the INDIA bloc, is also supporting Reddy for the Vice-Presidential polls.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Parliament Monsoon Session LIVE: Lok Sabha adjourned till 12 noon amid Opposition protests
Parliament Monsoon Session LIVE Updates: Union Home Minister Amit Shah is expected to introduce the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, on Wednesday. The Bill 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. The Bill will amend Article 75 of the Constitution: It will amend Article 75 of the Constitution, which primarily deals with the appointment and responsibilities of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister. 'A Minister, who for any period of 30 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 31st day after being taken in such custody,' the Bill states. © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
