Manipur: President's rule extended for six months; effective from August 13
In a statement, the Rajya Sabha parliamentary bulletin read: "Amit Shah, Minister of Home Affairs; and Minister of Cooperation has given a notice of the following Resolution which has been admitted:- 'That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation dated the 13th February, 2025 in respect of Manipur, issued under article 356 of the Constitution by the President, for a further period of six months with effect from 13th August, 2025'.
"
— ANI (@ANI)
The Presidential Rule was imposed in Manipur on February 13, shortly after N Biren Singh resigned from his post of chief minister after an ethnic violence.
As per Article 356(3) of the Constitution, President's Rule, which is enforced through the Governor's office, usually lasts six months and can be extended every six months with the approval of the Parliament for up to three years.
The ethnic conflict between Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities, which began on May 3, 2023, has resulted in 250 fatalities and forced more than 60,000 individuals to abandon their homes.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
A man in his 40s drank "Wasabi" and his hair became…
KAMINOWA
Learn More
Undo
National Highways 2 and 37, essential routes connecting the landlocked Imphal valley to Nagaland and Assam respectively, traverse through Kuki-Zo populated regions. Since May 2023, Meitei residents of the valley have been unable to use these highways. Additionally, over 6,000 police weapons were stolen in the State.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
BJP coerced AIADMK into alliance, fearing that coalition talks between AIADMK, TVK would succeed: Anwhar Raajhaa
Q: If the AIADMK was able to assert itself in the past, what is the pressure that led EPS to concede more than the BJP, according to you? A: I do not know what exactly it is, but there is surely something that the BJP is now using to control EPS. This is exactly what I oppose. Why does a big party in TN have to listen to the BJP is my concern. Q: Seat sharing is yet to be discussed, isn't it? Would it not be premature to say that the AIADMK is not in a position to dictate? A: The alliance was announced by Union Minister Amit Shah at a press conference in Chennai. If the AIADMK is in a commanding position, EPS should have done it. Instead, he remained silent. The backdrop at the press conference displayed BJP's flag, not AIADMK's. EPS has got entangled in a problem, resulting in this alliance. BJP will go to any extent to accomplish their ideology. In contrast, the AIADMK has its own ideology of 'Annaism'. EPS has completely deviated from AIADMK's ideologies. BJP believes they can advance their 'Sanatana' ideology through the AIADMK. EPS's tone during his ongoing campaign is akin to that of the BJP, as reflected in his (initial) stand that HR & CE funds should not be used to build educational institutions. That is why people like me are leaving. The problem is AIADMK is run only by a group of 7-8 persons. Q: Are you saying those 8 persons are in favor of BJP? A: No, we cannot say that. AIADMK leaders such as D. Jayakumar, Shanmugam, K.P. Munusamy, and many others share the opinion that allying with the BJP would alienate support of minority communities of Christians and Muslims, who together account for 14 percent (of State's population). Q: There are some assembly constituencies where victory is impossible without minorities' support. Are you saying that EPS does not care about winning these constituencies even though it is crucial to come back to power? Why are AIADMK leaders from these constituencies not raising their voices? A: We were all opposed. EPS himself repeatedly assured that there would be no alliance with the BJP. Suddenly, he changed his stance. Many AIADMK leaders are distressed, but they are keeping their feelings to themselves. I am speaking on their behalf. When they read this interview, they will feel glad that I am at least able to speak out now although they are not in a position to say anything. Without the support of minorities, they cannot win. In 2021, even BJP's Vanathi Srinivasan did not use Prime Minister Narendra Modi's photo in pamphlets in some areas while canvassing for votes. That is why she won Coimbatore South by a slender margin. Many AIADMK candidates also avoided using Modi's photos. Q: What was your position on the Citizenship Amendment Act and the ban on triple talaq when you were in the AIADMK? A: When I was an MP, I opposed the bill banning triple talaq in Parliament. AIADMK later supported CAA following BJP's request. I strongly opposed it within the party. The party's stance on these bills mattered then, but now the AIADMK itself is subordinate to the BJP. That is the context I am trying to explain. Please understand. Q: After joining DMK, what was your basis to allege that the BJP will swallow the AIADMK? A: It has destroyed many parties from the north to the south by forming coalitions. One prime example is what happened to former Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta's Asom Gana Parishad party. We all know what BJP did to Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. This is their strategy and track record. In such a political scenario, the only leader who can stand up against the BJP is our Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. They are struggling in front of him. To overpower Stalin, the BJP wants to piggyback on the AIADMK and finish it later. Q: Wouldn't AIADMK leaders, who have vast experience, be wary of such strategies, if any? A: They all know this, but they have no other option. With the advantage of the two-leaves symbol, which is with EPS, those who have money may win and become MLAs. Why would they want to risk the chance of sitting in the opposition at least?
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Church calls for ban on extremist religious groups
Kottayam: The arrest of two Catholic nuns by the Chhattisgarh police on charges of human trafficking and forced conversion is a deliberate attempt to undermine the social services provided by Christian churches, said Baselios Marthoma Mathews III, the Catholicos of the East and head of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. He stated that encroaching on the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be allowed. Extremist religious organizations must be banned and the Union govt should ensure that those who take the law into their own hands are held accountable and punished. The action taken against the nuns, he said, is a disgrace to India's secular and democratic values. The Catholicos was speaking at a solidarity meeting held at the Devalokam Catholicate Palace, the church's headquarters, to express support for the nuns. He noted the irony that the Chhattisgarh chief minister himself studied in schools established by Christian churches, yet supports such actions. "Appeasement on one side and persecution on the other is a clear double standard," he said. He questioned whether the central govt is truly capable of controlling extremist organizations or if it fears losing its supporters by doing so. If the govt is sincere in its commitment to justice and secularism, the Malankara Church hopes it will take a fair and firm stance on the issue, he added. All metropolitans of the church joined the solidarity declaration.
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Federal court question Trump's tariff authority; cites limit of emergency law, case likely headed to Supreme Court
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs (Image credits: AP) Appellate judges expressed skepticism Thursday over US President Donald Trump's legal rationale for imposing broad tariffs without congressional approval, raising doubts about his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the move. During a 99-minute hearing before the US court of appeals for the federal circuit, members of the 11-judge panel repeatedly challenged the Trump administration's unprecedented interpretation of the 1977 law, which allows the president to seize assets and block financial transactions during a national emergency. The law, originally signed by former President Jimmy Carter, makes no mention of tariffs. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' said Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna as quoted by AP. Attorney Brett Schumate, representing the Trump administration, acknowledged that 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way,' but argued that the country's trade deficit constituted a national emergency requiring such action. He insisted the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' authority in emergencies, but claimed Trump was not seeking 'unbounded authority.' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore questioned that logic. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Japanese AI invention allows you to speak 68 languages instantly. The idea? Genius. Enence 2.0 Undo 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it),' she said. Neal Katyal, attorney for the plaintiffs, called the administration's argument a 'breathtaking' overreach. 'It amounts to saying the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency,' he said. No ruling was issued Thursday, but the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court. The legal battle stems from Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on April 2, which levied new duties on nearly all imports. The lawsuit does not challenge tariffs targeting China or those on steel, aluminum, and autos, many of which remain under former President Joe Biden. In May, a three-judge panel of the US court of international trade ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. The current appeal seeks to overturn that decision. Trump addressed the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.' The lawsuit is one of at least seven filed against Trump's tariff policies, with plaintiffs including 12 US states and several businesses, such as a wine importer and a plumbing supply company. Although the US Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, decades of delegation have allowed presidents increasing control over trade policy. Trump capitalised on this, raising the average US tariff to over 18%- the highest rate since 1934, according to Yale University's Budget Lab.
