Mahadevappa to discuss SC and ST employees benefits with min concerned
He was speaking after inaugurating the state-level convention of the RDPR department SC and ST employees and the newly formed RDPR department SC and ST Employees Association at the Senate Hall in Manasagangothri.
"The state govt has constituted a committee to oversee the issues related to promotions for govt employees. Even the vigilance committee in the department of social welfare will take care of issues related to promotions," he said.
The minister also highlighted the role of employees of the RDPR department in the development of villages, where 65% of the population lives in harmony.
H
e also recalled the contributions of BR Ambedkar, programmes in the Constitution for the empowerment of SC/STs, and other vulnerable sections in society. Ambedkar played a key role in granting voting rights to scheduled castes, tribes, and women in the country.
Minister Mahadevappa also hailed the contributions of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in bringing the 74th amendment to the Constitution for the introduction of a three-tier system of local governance.
This amendment also provided 50% reservation for women to be represented in panchayat bodies. Many SC and ST panchayat members, including women, were elected and enjoyed positions in decision-making bodies of the local governance system among 6,200 gram panchayats in the state, he said.
Urilingapeddi Mutt Jnanaprakash Swami, MLC Yathindra Siddaramaiah, MLA AR Krishnamurthy, ZP CEO S Ukeshkumar, former Mayor Purushottam, and others were present.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Did you take chance…?': SC to Justice Yashwant Varma on his plea against probe into cash at his home
'Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take chance of favourable order there first?' the Supreme Court asked Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday, as he sought quashing of an adverse report of the SC in-house committee. Justice Yashwant Varma(PTI File) The committee found him guilty of misconduct over the unaccounted-for cash found at his Delhi residence in March. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that there is a process to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution, and that a judge can't be a subject of public debate, PTI reported. At this point, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" Justice Varma's plea challenges the probe report and the committee's very remit. It also seeks quashing of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. For now posted at the Allahabad high court, Justice Varma is staring at action via Parliament. Also read | Lok Sabha will initiate proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma: Kiren Rijiju When cash was allegedly found by firefighters in a blaze at his residence on March 14, he was a judge of the Delhi HC. He was not present there, and has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom. He has also alleged that the probe committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and merely drew inferences. He wants that the recommendation by the CJI — asking the President and Prime Minister to start his removal process — be declared unconstitutional, ANI reported. Also read | BJP orchestrated VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's exit over Justice Varma: Cong He has further argued that the in-house procedure extended beyond its role of self-regulation and fact-finding: 'By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism." The committee constituted on March 22 was comprised of Justices Sheel Nagu (then CJ of Punjab and Haryana high court), GS Sandhawalia (then CJ of Himachal Pradesh HC), and Anu Sivaraman (judge of Karnataka HC. (with agency inputs)
Scroll.in
5 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Kerala urges Supreme Court to dismiss president's reference about timelines for bills assent
The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to return unanswered the presidential reference that seeks clarity on whether courts can impose timelines on the president and the governors to act on bills passed by legislatures, Live Law reported. In its application, the state argued that the reference was an attempt to reopen and overturn the Supreme Court's April ruling in Tamil Nadu government's case against the governor. On July 22, the court issued notice to the Union government and all states on the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. According to Article 143 of the Constitution, the president may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The president makes such a reference based on the advice of the Union council of ministers. In May, referencing 14 questions, Murmu asked whether the actions of governors and the president could be tried in court and whether such timelines could be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the law. The president also said that Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution do not prescribe deadlines or specific procedural requirements. In light of the reference, the Supreme Court set up a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. In its application on Monday, Kerala argued that the reference was based on an 'erroneous statement' that Article 200 does not stipulate a time frame for governors to act on bills, Live Law reported. The state said that 11 out of the 14 questions raised by the president had already been addressed in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tamil Nadu case. It alleged that the reference was a 'serious misuse' of Article 143, the legal news outlet reported. Kerala also said that the Union government had not filed a review or curative petition against the April judgement and had therefore accepted it. SC's ruling on Tamil Nadu versus governor The ruling on April 8 had come on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. In its judgement, the court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, it said that the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both sections outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgement had also introduced the concept of ' deemed assent ' in cases of prolonged inaction by the governor or president, allowing pending bills to be considered approved.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
The State of Kerala on Monday (July 28, 2025) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear State Bills, saying it is a ruse to make the apex court sit in appeal of its own authoritative pronouncement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the apex court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said. The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM
