Panel of 3 ministers to review MBC demands
The committee comprises state law minister Jogaram Patel, social justice and empowerment minister Avinash Gehlot, and minister of state for home Jawahar Singh Bedam. The Gurjar community raised this demand during the Mahapanchayat in Peelupura, Bharatpur. Aparna Arora from the ACS Social Justice and Empowerment Department serves as the member secretary.
"Thanks to Honorable CM Bhajan Lal Sharma for forming a ministerial committee of three ministers as per the agreement reached between Gurjar Arakshan Sangarsh Samiti and the Rajasthan govt at the Peelupara Mahapanchayat on June 8," said Vijay Bainsla, president of the Gurjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti.
"We are hopeful and confident that under the leadership of the chief minister, the state govt will soon convene a cabinet meeting to recommend to the central govt to include MBC reservation in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and will also positively fulfil all other demands within the agreed time frame," he added.
The 9th Schedule of the Constitution comprises a compilation of laws that remain immune from judicial review and legal challenges.
Bainsla said the June 26 meeting with the govt to review the Devnarayan scheme was postponed, and the community is still awaiting a new date. During the Mahapanchayat, Bainsla read the govt's draft to the people, but a faction opposed the draft.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Censor board's ban on JSK an attack on creative freedom: Saji Cherian
Minister for Culture Saji Cherian has criticised the Central Board of Film Certifications' (CBFC) decision to deny screening permission for the film JSK-Janaki vs State of Kerala, starring Union Minister and actor Suresh Gopi, calling it a blatant infringement on freedom of expression. Interacting with mediapersons here on Tuesday, Mr. Cherian said, 'If this is the plight of a film featuring a Union Minister, what can common artists expect?' He said the government stands firmly with those in the film industry and creative fields and will extend all necessary support. 'A denial of certification merely based on a film's title is an unjustified overreach and cannot be accepted,' the Minister said. He drew parallels to the earlier censorship issues faced by Empuraan, directed by Prithviraj Sukumaran. Scenes from the film were removed and raids were conducted at the offices of the makers. 'But the people of Kerala wholeheartedly accepted the film,' he said. Mr. Cherian reaffirmed that the Constitution guarantees every citizen the democratic right to enjoy cinema, literature, music, and food choices. 'Any form of encroachment on these rights are unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring a supportive environment for artists to work freely,' he said. He said that the Kerala government will continue to uphold the spirit of artistic liberty and stand as a barrier against censorship and intolerance.
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Teach those who backed Waqf legislation a lesson in polls: Owaisi
Hyderabad parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi brought Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan into his political crosshairs over the latter's support of what is now the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. He urged people of the State to teach them a 'lesson' over their support for the controversial legislation. Mr Owaisi, who is a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, an organisation that has been spearheading demonstrations and public meetings in several parts of the country against the legislation, and demanding its withdrawal, was speaking in Kurnool. It is here that he criticised parties that supported the Waqf Amendment Bill, and lauded former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for opposing it. 'Till the time you do not give them [those who supported the Bill] a political defeat, they will never understand. We thank Mr. Reddy and those who opposed the Bill,' Mr Owaisi said. Mr. Owaisi launched a salvo against Mr. Naidu yet again, drew analogies with the applicability of the law of limitation on waqf properties and Mr Naidu's business interests. 'We want to ask Mr. Naidu: You have a vegetable shop called Heritage. If somebody is in possession of it for 20 years, will it be mine or will it continue to be yours,' he asked. He alleged that Mr. Naidu and Mr. Pawan Kalyan by supporting the Bill have supported Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in its efforts to take over masjids and dargahs. 'I appeal to you that whatever election it may be, local bodies, or any other, give Mr Naidu a befitting reply,' Mr Owaisi said even as he urged TDP's Muslim leaders to leave the party and set an example by not compromising on the Constitution and the Islamic law, if the leaders are in no mood to listen to their concerns.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Centre using ministries to sidestep Section 69A safeguards: X to K'taka HC
Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has told the Karnataka High Court that the content takedown and blocking notifications issued by Union ministries were being done without 'application of mind'. These content blocking and takedown orders were not aimed at combating unlawful information of the respective ministries but rather designed to achieve the goals of government and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to circumvent Section 69A of the IT (Information Technology) Act. In a revised petition moved on Tuesday, X said that a content takedown template had been provided by MeitY to several Union ministries, state governments, and the Director General of Police of various jurisdictions in India, to issue blocking orders, which fell outside the established processes of content takedown under Section 69A of the IT Act. The Sahyog portal of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which X termed the 'censorship portal' in its plea, is illegal because it creates a quasi-judicial body by executive fiat and also because it usurps judicial functions, the social media platform argued. It told the court that a quasi-judicial 'process' under the censorship portal, wherein any Central or state executive officer could unilaterally adjudicate whether information was 'unlawful' and direct its removal under threat of loss of safe harbour protection, created a quasi-judicial body because executive officers within the 'censorship portal' exercised powers to determine 'unlawfulness' and impose prejudicial consequences. The MHA's Sahyog portal, which X calls 'censorship portal' throughout its plea, is arbitrary, opaque, and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution, the company argued. X further contended that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules of 2021 was unconstitutional as it exceeded the limitations set by its parent statute, the IT Act, and thus violated the settled principles that subordinate legislation cannot exceed the limits of its enabling Act. Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 states that an intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, must not host, store, or publish such information. This rule is connected to Section 79, which provides intermediaries with protection from liability for user-generated content, but this protection can be revoked if they fail to remove unlawful content after being notified. Centre's reply In response, the Centre vehemently denied that the ministries are issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. The Centre explained that many government departments/ministries have a NIC office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC was directing the functioning of all the ministries, departments and courts, it said. The Central government further added that X was merely trying to conjure non-existent wrongdoing to bolster its arguments. Defending Rule 3(1)(d), the Centre said that it had sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse. The first proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) states that notifications under the rule may only be issued by the authorised agencies notified by the appropriate government. The requirement imposed on internet intermediaries not to 'host, store or publish' any unlawful information under Rule 3(1)(d) does not amount to a blocking order, the Centre said, adding that in case the intermediary continues to host, store or publish such information, the only change is that it cannot claim immunity under Section 79 and therefore may be prosecuted in court about that particular information. The 'lifting' of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the Central government said. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 talks about the rights of a user of an intermediary platform, not of an intermediary themselves, the Centre said. The Karnataka High Court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, challenging unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship.
