Will approach court if assent not given to establish college in Kalaignar's name: Higher Education Minister
Speaking at a book release event at his official residence, Mr. Chezhiaan stated that he and the Higher Education Secretary had sought an appointment with the Governor to discuss this issue but did not receive a response. 'If the assent is not given soon, the CM has already stated that we will approach the court and seek assent,' he told reporters.
He stated that the State government had attempted to contact the Governor by phone and had also written to him, but there was no response. 'The reason is he squirms when he hears the name of Kalaignar, or Tamil or Semmozhi. The people of Tamil Nadu know about this trait well.' He recalled that the Supreme Court had already laid down guidelines for the Governor's actions based on a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Breaking News Live July 23: Leaders of ex-Pak PM Imran Khan's PTI handed 10-year jail term in May 9 riot cases
00:57 (IST) Jul 23 The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday an appeal filed by Maharashtra govt challenging the Bombay high court judgment acquitting all 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death by the trial court, in the July 11, 2006 Mumbai train blasts that left 187 dead and 824 injured. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench led by CJI B R Gavai that the state had filed an appeal against the verdict and said, 'It has serious ramifications. Can it be listed for hearing on Wednesday?' CJI Gavai said he learnt from news reports that 8 accused have already been released from prison. The SG said that was true, but the petition required urgent hearing. Finding additional SG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare alongside the SG, the CJI said, 'It was Thakare who had argued the case before the HC. We will list the petition for hearing the day after tomorrow.' The govt in its appeal said the HC misdirected itself into trivialities and misread cogent evidence, leading to failure of justice. It said confessions of the accused persons, admissible under MCOCA, were discarded by HC on technicalities even when they formed a chain of events and outlined the conspiracy to launch the sinister attack on Mumbai suburban trains, which were full of people returning from offices, and cause maximum loss of lives.
Economic Times
31 minutes ago
- Economic Times
SC allows Chhattisgarh's ex-CM Bhupesh Baghel to move HC over maintainability of plea against him
The Chhattisgarh Congress has announced a statewide chakka jam on July 22 in protest against the arrest of Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Synopsis The Supreme Court has granted Bhupesh Baghel, former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, the opportunity to appeal to the High Court regarding a petition filed by his nephew, Vijay Baghel. The petition alleges violations of the Representation of the Peoples Act during the election. The court has directed the High Court to consider the application after hearing both sides. The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel to move the high court over a petition filed against him by his nephew Vijay Baghel. ADVERTISEMENT A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said if such an application is filed, the high court is requested to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the other side before it further proceeds on merits of the case. Allowing Baghel's counsel to withdraw the plea and move "high court-cum-election tribunal", the bench said, "It goes without saying that the observations made in the impugned order shall have no bearing on the merits of the application proposed to be moved on behalf of the petitioner." Senior advocate Vivek Tankha and advocate Sumeer Sodhi, appearing for Baghel, said breach of silence period did not amount to corrupt practice and hence the case was not maintainable. The petition was filed by BJP MP Vijay Baghel who unsuccessfully contested the assembly elections against Bhupesh Baghel from the Patan seat. Vijay said Bhupesh violated the provision of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 by taking out a procession after 5 pm in Patan constituency. He sought nullification of the former CM's election and barring him from contesting polls for six years. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ITAT rejects Congress appeal against tax demand of Rs 199 cr
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Monday dismissed an appeal filed by Congress challenging a tax demand of ₹199.15 crore for assessment year 2018-19. The tribunal rejected the party's claim for tax exemption under Section 13A due to late return filing and violations of cash donation limits, establishing strict compliance requirements for political parties seeking tax benefits. "All these assessee's (Congress) vehement submissions fail to evoke our concurrence," ruled the quorum of judicial member Satbeer Singh Godara and accountant member M Balaganesh. Referring to a leading Supreme Court judgment and a March 2016 high court ruling, the tribunal in its July 21 ruling held that an exemption mentioned in a tax statute must be "strictly complied with". The 50 page ITAT order referring to the two rulings (SC and HC) said "this is for the precise reason that so far as an interpretation of such an exemption provision in a fiscal statute is concerned", not only the high court has made it clear "that Section 13A has to be strictly complied with" but also the Supreme Court in a 2018 ruling "has settled the issue that it is not liberal but stricter interpretation only in a taxing statute which has to be employed in an exemption claim". Live Events Dismissing Congress's appeal, the tribunal held "that being the case and in light of the fact that even Section 139(4B) has stipulated filing of return within the 'due' date i.e. required to be furnished u/s 139(1), we are of the considered view that the above former clause in fact restricts any further liberalism herein as clearly incorporating the expression of 'due' date". "Therefore, the moment there is violation of such a 'due' date, Section 13A third proviso gets attracted, so as to result in denial of exemption to the party concerned," the order said.
