Cabinet To discuss SC QUOTA report on AugUST 7
The commission conducted a state-wide survey between May 5 and July 6, 2025, covering 27,24,768 SC households and 1,07,01,982 individuals. The report aims to provide a comprehensive basis for intra-reservation within the SC community, as per constitutional and judicial guidelines.
Speaking to reporters at Vidhana Soudha, CM Siddaramaiah confirmed receiving the report and stated that the cabinet will deliberate on its contents in the upcoming meeting on August 7. 'The report has been submitted today, but we have not reviewed its contents yet. It will be discussed in the cabinet meeting,' he said.
Home Minister Dr. G. Parameshwara described the report as historic and noted that its implementation would be deliberated by the cabinet. Minister K.H. Muniyappa expressed confidence that the recommendations would be implemented, while Social Welfare Minister R.B. Thimmapur reiterated the government's commitment to act on the findings.
Thimmapur also recalled that the commission was initially set up by former CM S.M. Krishna. He criticized the BJP for rejecting the Sadashiva Commission report and affirmed that the Congress government is determined to ensure justice through internal reservation.
The Nagamohan Das Commission was constituted in January 2025 to study sub-categorization among SCs due to lack of accurate data. The interim report, submitted on March 27, 2025, led to cabinet approval for a detailed socio-educational survey.
The commission's recommendations are based on educational backwardness, inadequate representation in government jobs, and social indicators. It aligns with Supreme Court directives that allow sub-categorization under Article 14 of the Constitution, provided no existing beneficiary is excluded.
The cabinet's decision on the implementation is expected to shape the future of reservation policies for SC subgroups in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
6 years & counting: Amit Shah becomes longest-serving home minister; surpasses LK Advani's record
NEW DELHI: on Tuesday became India's longest-serving Union Home Minister, surpassing the previous record held by senior vetaran . Shah has completed a total of 2,258 days (approximately 6 years and 68 days) in office since he first assumed the role on May 30, 2019. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He achieved this milestone on August 5, the same date he had announced the abrogation of Article 370 in Parliament in 2019, ending Jammu and Kashmir's special status, according to news agency ANI. Before Shah, the longest tenures as home minister were held by Congress leader Govind Ballabh Pant and BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani. Advani served in this position for 2,256 days (from March 19, 1998, to May 22, 2004) and Govind Ballabh Pant served for 6 years and 56 days from January 10, 1955, to March 7, 1961. Shah served as home minister from May 30, 2019, to June 9, 2024, and was reappointed on June 10, 2024, continuing in the role. Additionally, he holds the distinction of being the country's first cooperation minister. Earlier, he also served as the home minister of Gujarat and held the position of BJP National President. At a recent NDA meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised Shah for his contributions and congratulated him on becoming the longest-serving home minister in India's history. Under PM Modi's leadership, Amit Shah's tenure as home minister has brought major changes to India's internal security.
The Print
40 minutes ago
- The Print
‘Bangladeshi language' row: Amit Malviya defends Delhi Police letter, Oppn slams BJP ‘mouthpiece'
'Delhi Police is absolutely right in referring to the language as Bangladeshi in the context of identifying infiltrators. The term is being used to describe a set of dialects, syntax, and speech patterns that are distinctly different from the Bangla spoken in India. The official language of Bangladesh is not only phonologically different, but also includes dialects like Sylheti that are nearly incomprehensible to Indian Bengalis,' Malviya wrote Monday. His long post on X, in which he also argued that there is 'no language called Bengali' that covers all its 'variants', triggered a backlash from leaders of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Congress in West Bengal and the Northeast. New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Amit Malviya has defended a Delhi Police communique calling Bengali as a 'Bangladeshi language', saying it was 'right' to do so in the context of identifying infiltrators. He added that there is 'in fact, no language called 'Bengali' that neatly covers all these variants. 'Bengali' denotes ethnicity, not linguistic uniformity. He was responding to TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee's statement that the Delhi Police letter to the resident commissioner of the Banga Bhavan in the capital was 'scandalous, insulting, anti-national, unconstitutional'. 'Bengali, our mother tongue, the language of Rabindranath Tagore and Swami Vivekananda, the language in which our National Anthem and the National Song (the latter by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay) are written, the language in which crores of Indians speak and write, the language which is sanctified and recognised by the Constitution of India, is now described as a Bangladeshi language!!' Mamata had said. Malviya's statement, particularly his reference to Sylheti as 'nearly incomprehensible to Indian Bengalis', angered leaders in Assam's Barak Valley, home to a large population of Sylhetis, who are also present in significant numbers in Tripura, Meghalaya and West Bengal. In fact, in 1991, Kabindra Purkayastha, whose first language was the Sylheti dialect of Bengali, got elected to the Lok Sabha from Silchar, becoming the first ever BJP MP from Northeast. Even the current MP from Silchar—Parimal Suklabaidya—is from the BJP, which has won the seat five times since 1991. 'Disgraceful that the BJP's loud mouthpiece doesn't know the history of those of us who speak in Sylheti. PMO India needs to sack this incompetent and ignorant bigot. To say Sylheti is nearly incomprehensible to Indian Bengalis is a brainless statement coming from an empty vessel. Sylheti has been spoken & understood across India,' TMC Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev, who represented Silchar as a Congress Lok Sabha MP in the past, said. Assam Congress president Gaurav Gogoi also slammed Malviya, saying the 'arrogance of the BJP' blinds them to the dehumanisation of the Bengali people of West Bengal and Northeast India. 'Today the BJP IT cell insults the Bengali language spoken by lakhs of people in Tripura, Meghalaya and the Barak Valley of Assam. First the BJP asks the Bengali people to declare themselves as Bangladeshis first through the CAA, and now the party insults their language as being foreign. The BJP do not want a united India. They are only interested in re-opening old scars,' Gogoi wrote on X. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 'Jaitley was sent to threaten me, LS poll was rigged': Rahul's speech at Congress conclave raises storm
The Print
40 minutes ago
- The Print
An SC verdict shielded Shibu Soren in ‘JMM bribery case' of 1990s, but his own family undid the ruling
One of the most prominent names in the scandal was veteran tribal leader and then Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) President Shibu Soren. Born in January 1994, Soren emerged as one of the accused in the case, tying this case and judgement to his legacy. Sent by lawyer-turned-political-activist and Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (RMM) convener Ravindra Kumar, the letter alleged that certain Members of Parliament had given and taken bribes to tilt the scales in favour of the Narasimha Rao government in a no-confidence motion against it. Big names emerged, along with allegations of exchange of crores of rupees. New Delhi: On 1 January 1996, as the world was waking up to a fresh year, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a letter that intended to shake the foundation of the then Narasimha Rao government. Soren passed away on Monday at the age of 81, owing to a prolonged illness. His journey from a social reformer to a prominent politician is often spoken about, but this case, which came to be known as the 'JMM bribery case', followed him throughout his life. The genesis of this case lies in a no-confidence motion moved against the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in July 1993. Emerging as the single largest party in the 1991 general elections, Congress (I) formed the government with Rao as Prime Minister. The no-confidence motion was moved in the monsoon session of the Lok Sabha two years later by CPI(M) MP Ajay Mukhopadhyaya. The motion, with 265 votes in favour of the government, was defeated. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opened an investigation into Kumar's complaint, which led to a landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court in 1998. While this 1998 verdict remained the law of the land for 26 years, providing parliamentarians immunity from bribery cases around votes or speeches in Parliament, a case involving Soren's daughter-in-law led to the overturning of the verdict. This long journey of the case, as well as the overturning of the judgment, ensured that it remained in public memory for nearly three decades. Also Read: Soren, the statesman—the man who built Jharkhand, leader of the masses, the 'irreplaceable' Guruji The Supreme Court judgement Kumar's complaint opened a Pandora's box at the time. It alleged that certain members of Parliament, including JMM's Soren, Suraj Mandal, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahto, and others, owing allegiance to Janta Dal (Ajit Singh Group), received bribes from Rao and others to vote against the no-confidence motion. What followed was a criminal prosecution against the bribe-giving and bribe-taking Members of Parliament, and a special court in Delhi framed charges against them. However, the MPs demanded immunity, citing Article 105 of the Constitution. Article 105 provides the Houses of Parliament, their members, and their committees with powers and privileges. Among other things, the provision says that 'no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof'. Article 194 provides the same immunity to MLAs. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bribe-taking MPs in 1998, with a 3:2 majority. The court said that Article 105 'protects a Member of Parliament against proceedings in court that relate to, or concern, or have a connection or nexus with anything said, or a vote given, by him in Parliament'. The court ruled that the MPs who accepted the bribe and voted on the no-confidence motion would be immune from criminal prosecution for the offences of bribery and criminal conspiracy, as the alleged kickbacks were 'in respect of' a parliamentary vote. However, the court ruled that Ajit Singh, a party to the conspiracy but who did not cast a vote, will have no protection from prosecution. The judgment saved Soren, leading to his discharge by the trial court, but could not save former PM P.V. Narasimha Rao and his cabinet colleague Buta Singh because the court said that the immunity could only apply to the alleged bribe-takers and not bribe-givers. Rao and Singh were both convicted by a trial court in 2000, but in 2002, the Delhi High Court acquitted them. The undoing The 1998 judgment of the Supreme Court was, however, overturned by the apex court in March 2024. And the undoing was a result of a petition filed by Soren's MLA daughter-in-law, Sita Soren. Soren, then a member of JMM, was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections. While she did not finally vote for him, a criminal prosecution was launched against her by the CBI, and the court took cognisance of offences under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. While Sita tried to take shelter under the Supreme Court's 1998 judgment, the Jharkhand High Court ruled in February 2014 that the principle under which the court did not grant Ajit Singh immunity would apply to her as well, since she did not finally vote for the candidate she allegedly took a bribe for. Sita challenged the high court judgment in the Supreme Court in March 2014. Last year, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 judgment, ruling that Parliamentarians do not enjoy immunity under Articles 105 and 194 in cases of bribery allegations. Days after the judgment, Sita joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), months ahead of the assembly elections in Jharkhand, saying she had been 'isolated by the party and family members' ever since the death of her husband, Durga Soren. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: In Jharkhand, BJP is charging ahead with its campaign, while JMM is left steering ally Congress's ship
