Congress govt in Tgana to meet President to seek assent for BC quota bills
Hyderabad, Jul 28 (PTI) Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy would seek President Droupadi Murmu's appointment to meet her to request assent for the Assembly bills providing 42 per cent reservation to Backward Classes, Minister Ponnam Prabhakar said on Monday.
Briefing reporters after a meeting of the state cabinet Monday night, Backward Classes Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar said the Congress government has decided to garner support from all friendly parties at the national level, including Members of Parliament across party lines for providing 42 per cent reservation to Backward Classes (BCs) in local body polls and in education and employment opportunities.
'The chief minister is seeking appointment of opposition leaders in Parliament on August 5, 6 and 7. The Congress party along with its friendly parties and their members in Parliament, Telangana MLAs,MLCs and BC intellectuals will go to Delhi and request the President (for assent)," Prabhakar said adding ministers also would seek President Murmu's appointment.
Top leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge are also seeking the President's appointment, he added.
The bills were passed in March and sent to the Governor and it is pending assent from the President.
Prabhakar sought support from all the political parties in Telangana in order to secure Presidential assent to the bills.
The Telangana government earlier this month issued an ordinance facilitating 42 per cent reservation to Backward Classes in local body polls by amending an Act that was passed by the State Assembly in 2018.
On June 25, the Telangana High Court directed the state government to hold elections for local bodies within three months. PTI SJR GDK KH VGN
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments
First Published:
July 28, 2025, 23:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Malegaon blast verdict likely on July 31, 17 years after deadly attack
Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court is likely to deliver its verdict in the case on Thursday. Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, faced trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the other accused in the case. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conducted the probe into the case, has sought "commensurate punishment" for the accused. The trial, which started in 2018, got over on April 19, 2025, and the case was reserved for judgement. Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. In its final argument, the NIA submitted that the blast in Malegaon - a town with a sizable Muslim population - was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorise a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security. The NIA has said that based on "relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence" it "conclusively and cogently" established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events. It was established that the accused were "directly involved in the part of larger conspiracy hatched amongst themselves and (were) instrumental in causing a bomb explosion," the prosecution contended. The blast took place during the holy month of Ramzan, just before the Navratri festival, the NIA pointed out, claiming the intention of the accused was to strike terror in a section of the Muslim community. The case was initially probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before being transferred to the NIA in 2011. The trial in the case began in 2018 after the court framed charges against the seven accused. The charges comprised UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups). During the trial, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of whom 37 turned hostile. Thakur, in her final statement, submitted that her implication in the case is "totally illegal, bad in law and contrary to the law of the land and with malafide intention and ulterior motive". Citing the testimony of Mohan Kulkarni, an ATS officer who was part of the probe, Thakur claimed his statement "clearly shows she is an innocent person". Further referring to the officer's testimony, the BJP leader alleged she has been "implicated in this case by manipulating evidence with a prejudiced mind as it was pre-decided to implicate her". Purohit has submitted that "there is no material evidence" linking him to the alleged offence. "The prosecution's case rests on fabricated and contradictory witness statements that are devoid of any independent corroboration and fail to meet the evidentiary threshold required in law," his final arguments claimed. He alleged the investigation was "tainted by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for standard legal protocols". "These lapses not only vitiate the fairness of the proceedings but also render the prosecution's case wholly speculative and unreliable," he added. The other accused, too, have made similar submissions. The intervenor, representing the victims' side, contended the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case "is a classic example where the defense lacks a reasoned argument". "Some of the accused claim the bombing never happened, while others blame it on SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India). Each of the seven accused has advanced different and often conflicting defenses which are contrary to each other's claim which itself strengthens the case of prosecution," the victims said in their final submission. The present prosecuting agency, NIA, has established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of all the accused in the bomb blast, they submitted.
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Parliament panel flags poor resolution rate in digital consumer complaint system
New Delhi: India's flagship online consumer grievance platform, e-daakhil, has resolved less than a quarter of the complaints it has received since launch, a parliamentary panel said in a report Tuesday, flagging the lack of oversight and accountability despite the government's push for digital redressal. Only 23% of the total complaints filed through the platform have been resolved so far, with no dedicated system in place to track performance or enforce legal timelines, the Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution said. The committee expressed disappointment with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for failing to act on previous recommendations for institutional reforms, and called again for urgent corrective steps. 'The Committee remains concerned about the persistently low resolution rate of 23%... it (ministry) does not provide substantive information on steps being taken to address the backlog or accelerate case resolution,' the report noted. The e-daakhil portal was launched in September 2020 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to offer a cost-effective, paperless mechanism for consumers to file complaints, track progress, and make payments online. As of 27 November 2024, more than 198,000 complaints had been filed through the portal, of which 38,453 had been resolved, according to data from the consumer affairs ministry. The 23% resolution rate reflects cumulative performance since the portal's launch, but the Department has not published a clear baseline resolution rate from the period before 2020. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, complaints that do not require product testing or expert analysis must be resolved within three months from the date the notice is received by the opposite party. If testing or expert input is required, the Act provides for a maximum resolution timeline of five months. Queries sent to the spokesperson of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs remained unanswered till press time. Experts say the portal's limited impact stems not from its design but from the absence of institutional follow-through. 'If there's no mechanism to measure what happens after a complaint is filed, then the platform becomes just a filing cabinet,' said Ashim Sanyal, chief executive, Consumer Voice, a non-government consumer advocacy organization. The report also raised concerns over delays in implementing basic infrastructure under CONFONET, the government's IT backbone for consumer courts. Of the 45 video-conferencing systems scheduled to be installed by March 2024, only six were in place—all at the NCDRC—as of the deadline, the panel said. The delays not only added to the backlog but also left more than ₹ 30 crore in FY24 funds unspent, the panel, chaired by Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, said. 'We have asked for very basic measures from the Department, which is the custodian of consumer rights. Putting in place a monitoring mechanism for grievance redressal would bring greater transparency and significantly speed up complaint resolution,' Ranjeet Ranjan, Rajya Sabha MP and member of the Committee, told Mint. The ministry attributed the spending shortfall to procedural restrictions under the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), which allows payments only after full delivery. But the committee found that explanation inadequate and reiterated its call for the creation of a dedicated project management unit to monitor implementation timelines. In a written response dated 14 May 2025, the Department of Consumer Affairs said the implementing agency, the National Informatics Centre (NIC), had completed installation at only six benches of the NCDRC by the 15 March deadline. 'As per the terms and conditions of GeM, payment can only be released after 100% delivery. Therefore, the funds could not be released in 2023–24,' the ministry said. The panel said it was particularly concerned by the ministry's failure to establish a dedicated monitoring cell, a step it had recommended earlier to track key performance indicators and ensure legal compliance under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Digitization, the committee noted, had made filing easier but would remain ineffective without administrative reforms to reduce pendency. 'The Committee, therefore, reiterate their original recommendation for a dedicated monitoring mechanism and urge the department to take urgent and concrete steps to improve the case resolution rate and reduce pendency,' the report said.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Arvind Sanger warns US tariffs on India could exceed 20% without a strong deal
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads "There's a lot of negotiating through the press going on, and there's a clear recognition within the Trump administration that implementing tariffs like the 100%+ ones announced back in April only result in U.S. retailers running out of inventory and store shelves going empty," says Arvind Sanger Well, so far it seems like 15% is where the EU and Japan have landed. But they've agreed to cough up—or at least President Trump claims they've agreed to cough up—a fairly significant amount of investment into the U.S. I'm not sure what kind of deal India is aiming for. A month or month-and-a-half ago, I thought India would be at the front of the line. Now, unfortunately, it seems like India is at the back of the line. And frankly, the deals are going Trump's way. He didn't have to give anything to the EU in exchange for what he got. I don't think he gave up much to Japan either. So, the problem is that the later you come to the table, the less leverage you that sense, I'm not sure how it will pan out. But it's certainly going to be north of 15%, and whether it's 20% or higher will depend on how good a deal India can negotiate. Clearly, President Trump is negotiating with these public claims. They're not likely to reflect the final settlement, but we also don't know where it will ultimately land. What does seem clear is that it's unlikely to settle at the low levels we were hoping for just a few weeks a lot of negotiating through the press going on, and there's a clear recognition within the Trump administration that implementing tariffs like the 100%+ ones announced back in April only result in U.S. retailers running out of inventory and store shelves going empty. That's not something the U.S. government wants. China recognizes that some of these threats are hollow because both countries are heavily reliant on each my assumption is that there will be a lot of brinkmanship, but negotiations will continue. Tariffs are already at, I believe, 60%, which is not low. I'm not sure where things will eventually land, but my concern is that none of these outcomes are guaranteed. There's a lot of uncertainty, and yet the market is priced for perfection. That's the problem—global markets, especially the U.S. market, are assuming that everything will resolve perfectly. Yes, there have been a few good deals, but a lot still needs to remember, the sanctions are not directly on Russia. They're secondary sanctions on those buying Russian oil—primarily aimed at China and India, two of the largest buyers. Congress had proposed a bill imposing 500% secondary sanctions on Russian oil buyers, while President Trump has mentioned 100% sanctions. So that's the one hand, they're trying to negotiate deals with China and India; on the other, they're threatening them over Russian oil purchases. I remain skeptical. President Trump has talked tough on Iran and Venezuela in the past, but his actions have ultimately been restrained—to avoid oil price spikes—because he wants the Fed to cut rates. So I don't believe these threats will be acted upon, but over the past couple of days, he has been speaking quite seriously about them. We're keeping a close watch, though we remain skeptical. Still, the market is clearly pricing in the risk. If Trump follows through on his threats, it could cause major disruption in oil markets—Russia is, after all, the second-largest exporter after Saudi an interesting one. The employment data might surprise on the downside. As for inflation, I'm not expecting any big shocks, but the worst-case scenario would be high inflation coupled with weak jobs data. That would trap the Fed—what do they prioritize then? Especially as these tariffs begin to bite. Remember, we're in a 10% tariff regime until August 1st, after which new tariffs kick in. So, in terms of inflation and growth slowdown, the Fed can't declare victory too early. They'll need to watch the data from August and September to assess the full impact of the tariffs before making Chairman Powell says it's still too early to make a call—even with some encouraging signs—he'll likely avoid taking a strong stance in either direction. But the market, which is increasingly counting on a September rate cut, might get nervous. There's a lot of good news already priced in, but plenty of uncertainty lies ahead.
