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
India.com
37 minutes ago
- India.com
Not Aadhaar, PAN Or Voter ID: So What Really Makes You An Indian Citizen?
New Delhi: Citizenship has become a topic of intense discussion after the Bombay High Court clarified that having an Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not automatically make someone an Indian citizen. These documents serve only as proof of identity, the court said. This raises an important question: if PAN, voter ID or Aadhaar are not proof of citizenship, what officially establishes Indian nationality? Legally, India does not mandate a single document to prove citizenship. The Constitution lays down specific conditions. Anyone meeting these conditions qualifies as an Indian citizen. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Citizenship matters because it defines the legal bond between an individual and the nation. It grants rights and privileges. These include fundamental rights, voting rights, legal protections, employment rights and a sense of belonging. Laws determine who qualifies as a citizen. The Constitution of India, in Articles 5 to 11, outlines the rules. On January 26, 1950, all individuals living in India qualified as citizens if they were born in India, had at least one parent born in India or had resided in India for the preceding five years. Certain groups who migrated from Pakistan also qualifies. They include those whose parents or grandparents were born in undivided India, individuals who returned to India after moving to Pakistan and persons born abroad to Indian parents or grandparents. The Citizenship Act of 1955 expanded these provisions. It defines the circumstances under which citizenship can be granted or revoked. Citizenship can be acquired through birth, descent, registration, naturalization or integration of new territories into India. Birth-Based Citizenship Section 3 grants citizenship to individuals born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1986 or those born later with at least one Indian parent. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 further refined the rules, covering children born after its enactment. Descent-Based Citizenship Section 4 allows individuals born outside India to claim citizenship if one parent is an Indian citizen. Registration within a year of birth at an Indian mission is required for those born abroad after December 3, 2004. Registration And Naturalisation Foreign nationals meeting specific criteria can apply for citizenship under Section 5. They must renounce previous citizenship once approved. Section 6 allows long-term residents to apply through naturalisation, following a set procedure. Citizenship Through New Territories Section 7 covers cases where foreign territories become part of India. Legal procedures confirm citizenship, and an official government notification lists eligible residents. Proof Of Citizenship India does not issue a single, universal document as proof of citizenship. Birth certificates serve as evidence for individuals born in India, issued by local municipal or panchayat authorities. Applications can be made online or offline, and approved certificates record the place of birth, confirming eligibility for citizenship. Those granted citizenship through registration or naturalisation receive a certificate signed by an Indian government official of under-secretary rank or higher. This certificate serves as official proof of Indian citizenship. Documents such as passports, Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID or ration cards are not legal proof of citizenship. They serve as identity documents or residency proof and cannot confer citizenship. Lack of these documents does not strip a person of Indian nationality.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Whether President would seek SC opinion is her prerogative, says CJI
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Centre did not have to labour to persuade a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday to recognise an apparent constitutional fallacy in the two-judge bench's April 8 virtual directive to the President to seek SC's opinion on constitutional validity of a bill reserved for her consideration by a governor. The constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar appeared convinced by solicitor general Tushar Mehta's argument that the two-judge bench could not have used SC's Article 142 powers to step into the governor's shoes and grant deemed assent to 10 bills of Tamil Nadu. "These two directions - the President to seek opinion of SC and deemed assent - are fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional," Mehta said. SC fallaciously assumed that the President, the highest constitutional authority of India, lacks ability or wherewithal to ascertain constitutional validity of bills, which have been passed by an assembly but reserved for her consideration by the governor, he argued. CJI Gavai responded to his argument about such directions being hazardous for the stone-carved constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by saying, "If all the bills reserved for the President's consideration become part of Presidential Reference, SC will do no other judicial work except giving advisory opinions as each Reference has to be addressed by a bench of minimum five judges." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Telematics Will Shift Tech Into High Gear: 7 Projected Changes Over the Next 10 Years TechBullion Undo A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on Apr 9 said whenever a bill is reserved for the President's consideration on the ground of its patent unconstitutionality, "the President must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action. Therefore, as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this court in exercise of powers under Article 143 of the Constitution (and seek SC's opinion)". Mehta told the bench to take example of a case where the President obtains such opinion from SC on the constitutional validity of a bill and grants assent. With bill thus becoming an Act, as in the case of the Tamil Nadu bills which have been published in the gazette mentioning that SC has granted deemed assent, how would an HC or SC adjudicate its validity given the fact that it has become a law after the SC had already vetted its constitutionally validity? Steering clear of the maze of consequential constitutional complications that would emerge if SC engaged in pre-law stage vetting of validity of bills, the CJI said, "Whether the President would seek advisory opinion of SC under Article 143 is her sole prerogative." Mehta said Article 142 powers, exclusively given to SC to do complete justice by acting within the constitutional and statutory parameters, cannot be used to assume the role of another coordinate constitutional authority like governor. He said the Constitution wherever needed has provided the 'deemed' provision, and hence, it prohibits SC from reading in 'deemed assent' provision into the Constitution using the powers it enjoys under Article 142. On the President's last question - whether states could invoke Article 32 right to directly move SC seeking a mandamus to governor, Mehta said any federal dispute involving Centre and state(s); or state(s) and state(s), must be resolved politically or in the alternative, a suit under Article 131 can be filed in SC. However, he said he would take instructions from the President, whether she would still press for an opinion from SC on this issue and inform the bench on Tuesday.
