Rangasamy submits memorandum to Vice-President seeking Statehood for Puducherry
He urged Mr. Dhankhar 'to discuss granting of Statehood issue whenever possible at higher levels to take Puducherry to the next level of quality of life and for enhanced tourism and industrial development.'
Mr. Rangasamy said all political parties while in power have impressed upon the Central government the need for granting Statehood to the union territory. The Legislative Assembly has passed several unanimous resolutions demanding the same. It was the earnest desire of all political parties and more importantly people of Puducherry to get Statehood, the memorandum said.
'I would like to emphasize that the elected government of U.T. is a limited government, not by the Constitution but because of the decades old law of Parliament, the U.T. Act of 1963, which is still in force. Even though the government is elected democratically with Council of Ministers and an Assembly, it is unable to function and execute various developmental activities quickly because of lack of powers at the level of Council of Ministers,' he said.
The Chief Minister said the territory would be eligible for additional revenue of ₹ 1,500 crore to ₹ 2,000 crore through devolution of funds if Statehood is granted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
16 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court stays HC order pausing West Bengal govt's OBC quota notification
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta high court order, pausing the West Bengal government's notification extending reservation benefits to 140 communities under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, terming it 'erroneous'. The Supreme Court called high court's reasoning surprising. (AFP) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise over the June 17 order staying a June 10 classification notification in the absence of legislation. It said that a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) allowed the executive to identify socially and educationally backward classes for reservation through executive notification. The observation came in the context of the high court observation that the state acted with 'undue haste' through an 'executive fiat' without placing the matter before the legislature. 'We will stay the order…It is very surprising to read the reasoning given by the high court. Prima facie, we feel the order is erroneous,' the bench said. The bench, which was initially inclined to return the matter to the high court by ordering status quo, posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. The lawyers, appearing in the case, insisted that the Supreme Court hear and decide the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the West Bengal government that challenged the June 17 order, said the state is facing contempt proceedings as it has to fill 900,000 posts based on the June 10 notification. Three individuals and an organisation challenged the notification, arguing that the state had not ascertained the economic conditions for extending the reservation and that it was not backed by law. A high court bench of justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty passed an interim direction staying the June 10 notification until July 31. Senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the petitioners in the high court, told the Supreme Court about a similar exercise to classify 77 castes as OBCs, mostly Muslims, since 2010. The high court struck down that exercise in May last year. The state appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In March, the state government withdrew its appeal, saying a revised exercise was being conducted. Kumar and Krishnakumar argued that one and a half months is too short for ascertaining the eligibility of the communities to be added as OBCs on the state list. Krishnakumar pointed out that the law mandates the state to consult the backward class panel and carry out an extensive survey of the communities intended to be added to the OBC list. Sibal cited the Constitution's Article 342A(3) and said states are entitled to prepare and maintain the OBC list. The high court order said prima facie it appears the government was proceeding in hot haste and attempting to bring in the self-same classes and re-introduce the percentage of reservation, which had been struck down, by executive orders and not in exercise of the state's legislative functions. The May 2024 high court order struck down the state's decision, relating to 77 communities, citing the same reasoning that the legislature, and not the executive, can carry out this exercise.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
"Why Did You Wait?" Supreme Court's Tough Questions To Cash Row Judge
New Delhi: Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the Supreme Court's action against him following the cash recovery from his Delhi home, the top court today said the petition "should not have been filed like this" and that the judge's "main issue is with the Supreme Court". "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see, the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is (the) Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned," the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said. According to the Supreme Court website, the petition, filed by the judge under the name 'XXX', has three respondents: (1) The Union of India (2) Supreme Court of India (3) Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta also took exception when he found that the report of the three-judge panel, which probed the allegations against Justice Varma, had not been attached to the petition. "Where is the report of the three-judge panel?" he asked. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied that the report is in public domain, Justice Datta replied, "No, you should have attached the report with your plea." Arguing the matter, Mr Sibal pointed to the rules laid down in the Constitution for the removal of a judge. He flagged the action against Justice Varma and said it did not follow due process. "The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges... all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench judgment," he said. The top court referred to former Chief Justice Khanna's letter to the Prime Minister and President, recommending action against Justice Varma. "How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain," the court asked. When Mr Sibal said the cash was found in the outhouse and questioned how it could be attributed to the judge, Justice Datta responded, "Police, FIR, staff, all were there and cash was found." The senior lawyer replied that the judge's staff were not present. When Justice Datta asked if Mr Sibal was saying that the committee's report is not worth it, he replied, "No, it's not." "Why did you not challenge when (the) committee was appointed, why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta asked. Mr Sibal said Justice Varma appeared before the committee because he thought it would find out who the cash belonged to. The case will be heard next on Wednesday. Justice Varma made headlines after a massive cash recovery from his Delhi residence during a fire. Following the incident, which triggered allegations of corruption, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal. The judge has now challenged this action. He has said the top court panel did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office". "This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.
