CM Rangasamy seeks VP's intervention to grant statehood to Puducherry
Rangasamy stated that successive elected governments, irrespective of their political parties, have time and again impressed upon the Centre for the need for statehood.
Rangasamy presented a memorandum to the vice president on Monday during a meeting. Dhankar is currently on an official three-day visit to Puducherry to participate in functions at JIPMER and Pondicherry Central University.
Puducherry June 16 (PTI) Chief Minister of Puducherry N Rangasamy has sought the intervention of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar to grant statehood to Puducherry, which is currently a Union Territory.
The territorial Assembly had also adopted resolutions with the unanimous support of all political parties and more importantly the people of Puducherry for statehood, he pointed out in the memorandum.
The chief minister emphasised that the elected government of the Union Territory of Puducherry is a limited government, not by the Constitution but by the decades-old law of the Parliament, through the Government of Union Territories Act of 1963 which is still in force.
He stated in the memorandum that even though the government is elected democratically with a Council of Ministers and an assembly, it is unable to function and execute various developmental activities quickly because of a lack of powers at the level of the Council of Ministers.
He also brought to the notice of the vice president that Puducherry is currently not included in the Finance Commission on the ground, resulting in improper devolution of funds for development.
He also pointed out that if statehood is granted to the Union territory about Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000 crores under additional devolution of funds as per the existing formula can be expected which will be helpful to take up various infrastructural activities to improve Puducherry as a fast-growing place as a tourism destination.
'With limited powers now we are unable to attract investors for industrial development to generate employment opportunities,' Rangasamy said.
He requested the vice president to discuss the granting of statehood whenever possible at higher levels for enhanced tourism and for industrial development. PTI COR HIG HIG
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
31 minutes ago
- Hans India
AP govt disburses `400 cr through CMRF in one year
Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh government disbursed a whopping Rs 400 crore through the Chief Minister's Relief Fund (CMRF) in the last one year, thereby helping scores of families in the State. Through the CMRF, Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu extended substantial aid to those suffering from serious health conditions. This financial assistance benefitted those who were not covered under the NTR Vaidya Seva scheme. Unlike any previous government, Naidu has allocated massive funds through CMRF, standing by the people in need, officials say. Compared to 2014, the state's financial situation in 2024 is in bad shape. 'The government is struggling to pay even small bills. Despite this, it is balancing welfare schemes and development programmes, launching several initiatives within just one year. In this context, the Chief Minister has been providing aid through CMRF without hesitation. A significant portion of the petitions and grievances submitted to the CM involve requests for CMRF assistance. Recognizing the importance of this, the Chief Minister has established a mechanism to resolve petitions within hours or days,' an official told Hans India For those treated in private hospitals for critical illnesses, the government reimburses expenses through the CMRF. Many families are being financially devastated by unexpected health crises. In such cases, people apply for aid either directly or through MLAs. Poor families who fall into debt due to major illnesses are greatly benefiting from the CMRF's support. According to available statistics, the state government in undivided Andhra Pradesh spent only Rs 758 crore under the CMRF from 2004 to 2014. But after taking over as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in 2014 post-bifurcation, Chandrababu provided Rs 1,533 crore through CMRF over five years, benefiting 2,23,742 individuals across 13 districts. This amount was more than what three Chief Ministers provided over 10 years in the united AP. However, when the YSRCP government came to power in 2019, the support from the CMRF declined sharply. Due to lack of access to the Chief Minister's Office, lack of a system for collecting petitions, absence of MLA appointments, and a generally closed-door approach, most applications did not even reach CM's desk. Between 2019 and 2024, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, the then chief minister, released only Rs 897 crore through the CMRF. After returning to power for the fourth time in 2024 with a historic mandate, Naidu started allocating more funds for CMRF. The Chief Minister is also meeting common citizens daily at the Secretariat, personally receiving petitions. Whether at the party office or during district visits, wherever he receives petitions, he immediately instructs officials to act on them. As a result, within just one year, Chandrababu sanctioned around Rs 400 through the CMRF, benefiting 35,000 individuals. Depending on the severity of the medical condition, Letters of Credit (LOCs) are issued immediately to ensure timely treatment. Based on the family's financial condition and the seriousness of the illness, amounts ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 30 lakh are being disbursed to poor people. In the past year alone, 3,354 people have received LoCs worth Rs 89 crore. TDP state president Palla Srinivasa Rao said the Chief Minister took initiative to help ailing people through CMRF funds. He said poor and middle-class families suffer heavily and fall into debt traps due to health issues. Therefore, the Chief Minister is personally disbursing CMRF cheques to the family members of ailing people including those above poverty line. Citing an example, he said that he handed over a cheque for Rs 20 lakh from the CMRF to a poor man in his constituency, Gajuwaka, in Visakhapatnam. Thanking the Chief Minister for sanctioning financial assistance under the CMRF, B Rajeswari, a senior citizen and resident of Vijayawada, who underwent an operation, opined that the timely help from the Chief Minister saved her life.
Economic Times
35 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
File FIR against channels that showed teacher as Lashkar terrorist killed during Op Sindoor: J&K court
A local court in J&K on Saturday directed the police to register an FIR against some news channels that had aired the photograph of a local religious seminary portraying him as an LeT terrorist killed in Kotli in Pakistan occupied Kashmir during Operation Sindoor. The teacher Qari Mohammad Iqbal of Qari Mohalla was in fact killed during cross-bordering shelling by Pakistan in Poonch on May 7. India launched Operation Sindoor and hit nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 in which 26 people were killed. Referring to a report by SHO Poonch that two news channels had initially aired that Iqbal was a Pakistan terrorist, later withdrew it and issued an apology following clarification, Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, Sjafeeq Ahmed, said, 'the subsequent apology by the news channels does not cure the mischief already caused''. 'An apology may have mitigating value at the state of sentencing, but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,' the judge observed, directing the SHO of Poonch Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 353(2) (public mischief) ,356 (defamation) and 196(1) (outraging religious sentiments) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 'While freedom of the press is a vital part of democracy protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as defamation, public order, decency and morality,' the judge said. 'In the present case, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a Pakistani terrorist without any verification, particularly during a period of India-Pakistan hostilities, cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,' he said. 'Such conduct amounts to public mischief and defamation, capable of causing public outrage, disturbing social harmony, and tarnishing the reputation of the deceased and the institution he served,'' the judge said. '… In today's digital era, misinformation can spread rapidly, creating confusion and unrest,' the judge said. An application seeking registration of an FIR against the news channels was filed by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, who claimed that the news channels not only displayed his name and photograph portraying him as an LeT terrorist, but also linked him to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. Referring to the SHO's report that the family members of the deceased did not lodge any complaint and the broadcast of the news had originated from Delhi, the judge said there is no legal bar to any person with knowledge of the offence, including a public spirited citizen, to initiate such action. The SHO's second contention about the territorial jurisdiction in view of broadcast originating from Delhi also fails in the light of Section 199 BNS which provides that when an act and its consequences occur in different places, jurisdiction arises in either location, the judge said. In the present case, the consequence of the broadcast — defamation, emotional injury and public unrest — occurred in Poonch, where the deceased resided, served and was martyred, he pointed out. Earlier, Iqbal's family members had served legal notice through advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed to both the news channels seeking damages of Rs 5 crore each.
