Stalin seeks PM's intervention over falling prices for mango farmers
Mr. Stalin urged for ensuring the standards laid down by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) were followed over procurement of the fruits for pulp and further to reduce the GST rate for mango pulp from 12% to 5%. He also urged for helping mango farmers by implementing the Market Intervention Scheme (a component of PM-AASHA).
Mr. Stalin highlighted the high production of mangoes this season and referred to the low price that has severely affected the mango farmers in the State. The price for procurement for pulp fell by ₹5 a kg due to high production this year, he pointed out.
A delegation from Tamil Nadu led by Food Minister R. Sakkarapani is scheduled to call on the Union Minister in New Delhi on Wednesday and hand over the CM's request. MPs Tiruchi Siva and Kanimozhi and legislators D. Mathiazhagan and Y. Prakash would also be part of the delegation.
Mango is cultivated in 1.46 lakh hectares and the production stands about 9.49 lakh MT in Tamil Nadu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
14 minutes ago
- India.com
PM-KISAN 20th installment BIG Update: Modi government issues Important statement, Agriculture Ministry says…
PM-KISAN योजना के तहत पात्र किसानों को हर 4 महीने में 2000 की आर्थिक सहायता दी जाती है. New Delhi: Many farmer beneficiaries are eagerly waiting for the 20th instalment of the PM-Kisan scheme. Under the PM-Kisan scheme, farmers are provided with financial assistance of ₹6,000 every year. This amount is given in three separate installments of Rs 2,000 each (PM-Kisan 20th installment date). According to the 19th installment released in February, farmers should have received the 20th installment amount by now. Union Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said that as many as 11,171 farmers in Delhi received Rs 2.59 crore between December 2024 to March 2025 as the latest instalment under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme. What did the Ministry of Agriculture say? Replying to a question by BJP's South Delhi MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri, Union Minister Chouhan shared data in Lok Sabha showing that between August-November 2019 and March 2025, farmers in Delhi received Rs 48.79 crore under the scheme. The Minister said that across the nation, 10.06 crore beneficiaries of PM-KISAN were given Rs 23,500.83 crore in the last instalment for the period from December 2024 to March 2025. Maintaining absolute transparency in registering and verifying beneficiaries, as on July 16, the Central government has disbursed over Rs 3.69 lakh crore to farmers in 19 instalments since inception, said Chouhan. 'A farmer-centric digital infrastructure has ensured that the benefits of the scheme reach all eligible farmers across the country without involvement of any intermediaries,' he said. FAKE NEWS ALERT The Ministry of Agriculture recently shared a post on the social media platform X. In this post, farmers have been advised to stay alert. Through the post, the Ministry of Agriculture stated that no farmer should fall for false information or fake messages being circulated on social media in the name of the PM-KISAN scheme. How to check PM-KISAN scheme Instalment? Step 1: Visit the official website of the PM-KISAN scheme. Step 2: Go to the Farmer Corner section and click on the Beneficiary List option. Step 3: Here, you will have to enter details like State, District, and Sub-district. You'll also need to provide information about your Block and Village. This is how you can check whether the installment has been released or not. To find out if the money has been credited, follow the steps below: Step 1: First, go to the official website of the PM-KISAN scheme. Step 2: Now click on the Beneficiary Status option. You will find it under the Farmer Corner section. Step 3: Now, you will need to enter your Aadhaar number, registered mobile number, or account number here.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Can SC fix timeline for President, governor nod to bills? Centre, states' view sought
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Monday swiftly entertained President Droupadi Murmu's reference questioning SC's power and jurisdiction to fix timelines for the President and governors in granting, declining or withholding assent to bills passed by assemblies while brushing aside 'maintainability' objections by Tamil Nadu and Kerala. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar issued notice to the Union and state govts on the presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution which seeks the SC's opinion on the correctness of the April 8 judgment of an SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala granting deemed assent to Tamil Nadu bills using the SC's exclusive powers under Art 142. The bench said it would post preliminary hearing on July 29 to fix a schedule for detailed hearing on issues raised by the President. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, for Kerala, and P Wilson raised the issue of maintainability of the reference. The bench said all questions raised in the reference were open for consideration. However, it said it would hear all parties on the issue of maintainability and asked Wilson not to raise it repeatedly. The bench said attorney general R Venkataramani would assist the court while solicitor general Tushar Mehta would represent the Union govt. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Filipinos don't know about this! Read More Undo On the opposite side were senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium and Rakesh Dwivedi. TOI was the first to report on May 15 about the President sending a reference to the SC for its opinion on the contentious issue of judiciary stepping into the domain of the executive, especially when the Constitution gave no power to the SC to grant deemed assent on behalf of the governor to bills. The reference had said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to governors and the President respectively, 'does not stipulate any timeframe or procedure' to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a bill passed by an assembly. 'The exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,' the reference had said. Article 200 mandates the governor, on presentation of a bill passed by an assembly, to grant assent or 'as soon as possible' return the bill, excluding money bills, for reconsideration by the House. And when the reconsidered bill is presented to the governor, he 'shall not withhold assent', the provision says. However, when a governor reserves a bill for consideration of the President, she under Article 201 is mandated to declare whether she assents to the bill or withholds it. If she directs the governor to return the bill for reconsideration of the House, then upon reconsideration within six months, it 'shall be presented again to the President for assent'. It does not fix any timeline for the President. Critical of the SC using its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 bills pending with the TN governor were deemed to have been assented to, the President had said, 'The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the governor.'
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC seeks Centre's response on timeline for Prez assent to Bills
New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses of the Centre and all states on the Presidential reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with Bills passed by the Assembly. Observing that the issues raised in the Presidential reference will affect 'the entire country', a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought the replies in a week and fixed the reference for fixing timelines and other procedural details on July 29. "There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the Attorney General to assist us. Issue notice to the Union and all state governments. The Solicitor General will appear for the Union. All state governments be served through emails. List it on next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsel," ordered the bench which also comprised justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. During a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, opposed the reference and questioned its maintainability. These objections can be raised later, the CJI said, adding the matter will be taken up in mid-August. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the Bills passed by the state Assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of Governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of Bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the Governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the Bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the Bills reserved for the President's consideration by the Governor. The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of Governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon Governor for the exercise of constitutional options. The President said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent, therefrom does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court. The verdict has set a timeline for all Governors to act on the Bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any Bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration.
