‘Cabinet should give nod to MBC quota within 2 meetings'
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
A day after addressing the Gurjar Mahapanchayat at Pilupura in Bharatpur, Bainsla said the samiti assured the community that the BJP govt was actively working on the proposal and the approval process was likely to begin soon. "I strongly feel that the govt already initiated steps toward approving the proposal. If not in the next cabinet meeting, which is expected in two to three weeks, I am confident it will be approved in the following one," he said, while indirectly setting the deadline for the govt.
During the mahapanchayat, the state govt presented a draft letter to the samiti, outlining key assurances. Among them was the commitment that the state cabinet would formally clear the proposal before forwarding it to the Centre for inclusion in the 9th Schedule.
He also revealed that he spoke to Kuldeep Ranka, additional chief secretary of department of social justice and empowerment, regarding inconsistencies in the implementation of the Devnarayan Yojana.
The scheme, aimed at providing financial aid and scholarships to MBC students, will now be reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure timely delivery of benefits, Bainsla said. Samiti-nominated representatives will be included in meetings to monitor progress, he said.
Bainsla also highlighted other commitments made by the govt, including expedited resolution of legal cases related to Gurjar quota agitation. He said a ministerial committee will be formed to review the MBC quota. This committee is expected to meet with the samiti within 60 days. Based on those discussions, further decisions will be made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Flags "Grey Area" In Law Over Seeking Votes On Religion, Caste
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while rejecting a petition seeking de-registration and de-recognition of Asaduddin Owaisi's party AIMIM, today orally remarked that there exists a "grey area" when it comes to political parties using religious and caste sentiments to get votes, which is "dangerous". A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi today refused to entertain the plea against AIMIM but allowed the petitioner to file a writ petition raising the larger issue without naming any particular party. The top court was hearing plea against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of Tirupati Narashima Murari's petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by the Election Commission to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, held that under the Abhiram Singh verdict, an election petition can be filed against an individual candidate who seeks votes in name of religion and not a political party. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for petitioners today argued that Mr Owaisi's party is in teeth of Constitution, especially the principle of Secularism. Advocate Jain cited a landmark ruling by Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh case where it was held that no-one can ask for votes in the name of religion. However, the bench said that under the Abhiram Singh verdict an election petition can be filed against individual candidate who seek votes in name of religion and not a political party. Justice Surya Kant remarked that the AIMIM's constitution is not against the Indian Constitution. "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities in Constitution... party manifesto says it will work towards protection of those rights," Justice Kant remarked. Advocate Jain however further pressed that AIMIM's constitution also says it will promote Islamic education amongst Muslims. Advocate Jain said that this is discriminatory as if he goes before the Election Commission and sought registration of a political party with a Hindu name, saying he will promote teaching of Vedas, Upanishads etc, he won't be allowed. At this point Justice Kant said that there is nothing wrong in promoting education. "If ECI raises objection against teaching of Vedas or anything, please go to the apt forum. Law will take care of that. Nothing wrong in reading old treatise, books or literature. Absolutely no prohibition under law," Justice Kant said. Advocate Jain however argued that under Constitution only education institution can do so. But Justice Kant said that it will be great if political parties engage in promoting education. The advocate again pressed his arguments that "AIMIM promotes unity only in Muslims, why not all Indians?" The top court was not convinced with his arguments and suggested that he raise the larger issue without naming any party or person in a fresh plea. Justice Kant partially agreed with advocate Jain's argument and said, "You may be right, there is some grey area... File a petition which does not name any particular person... or accuses everyone." Justice Kant said that there are some parties which rely on caste sentiments, that's equally dangerous. The bench said that the larger perspective is reforms and granted liberty to petitioner to come to court with larger issue of parties seeking vote in names of caste and religion.
Scroll.in
4 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Not exercising restraint on social media may lead to state intervention: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said that citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and exercise self-restraint on social media, failing which the state would intervene, The Indian Express reported. The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan also considered framing guidelines to control 'divisive tendencies' on social media platforms, PTI reported. The bench was hearing a plea by Kolkata resident Wajahat Khan who had sought consolidation of first information reports filed against him in several states in connection with his allegedly objectionable posts about Hindu deities on social media. The court cited the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The provision outlines the restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The bench said that the restrictions had been placed correctly and that the state can step in when there was a violation. 'We are not speaking about censorship,' Live Law quoted Nagarathna as saying. 'But in the interest of fraternity, secularism and dignity of will have to go into this beyond this petition.' Nagarathna said that one of the fundamental duties of citizens was to uphold the unity and integrity of the country. '…See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed,' she said. 'But to what extent can the state curb?' She went on to ask: 'Instead, why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't then the state will step in and who wants the state to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in.' The bench asked the petitioner's counsel and the state 'to assist vis-à-vis the guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply'. In March, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to frame regulations to stop the broadcast of programmes that do not meet the 'acceptable moral standards of our society', particularly on social media platforms while ensuring that the measures do not impinge the fundamental right to free speech.
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
Privacy Vs Proof: Supreme Court Verdict On Secret Recordings Reshapes Marital Disputes
Last Updated: While some in the legal fraternity acknowledged the court's attempts to build safeguards, others stressed that it cuts deep into the sanctity of marriage In a judgment that might make couples think twice before whispering secrets at home, the Supreme Court has ruled that secret recordings between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The landmark verdict has sent ripples through legal and social circles, with some hailing it as a win for justice and others warning it could turn marriages into surveillance zones. Advocate Amish Aggarwala, a specialist in law relating to marital disputes, welcomed the decision, saying it clarifies murky interpretations of privacy rights and spousal privilege. 'Right to privacy is protection against the State, not against individuals," he asserted, emphasising that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act—often used to withhold spousal testimony—is merely an exception, not a blanket shield. Adding her voice to the chorus of support, advocate Tarini K Nayak called the decision 'valid and timely". She argued that the judgment does not violate individual privacy since the use of recordings is confined to legal proceedings and subject to judicial scrutiny. 'Privacy must be balanced with accountability. The court has ensured that the interests of justice are prioritised without turning the bedroom into a courtroom by default," Nayak said. But not everyone is convinced that this legal precedent is marital bliss. Advocate-on-Record Tanya Srivastava warned that it opens a Pandora's box in already delicate matrimonial cases. 'It's a dangerous precedent. I've seen clients provoke their partners just to capture them at their worst. You can't always tell what's real and what's weaponised in such recordings," she cautioned. On the other hand, Advocate-on-Record Bhaskar Aditya believes the ruling is in sync with the times, citing the rise in failed marriages and marital discord. 'When relationships break down, the right to a fair trial shouldn't," he said, calling the ruling consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty—including a fair trial. As India grapples with evolving definitions of privacy, marriage, and justice, this ruling raises a crucial—and quirky—question: In the age of smartphones and secret mics, is love still blind… or just being quietly recorded? view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
