Delhi Assembly To Introduce Gender-Neutral Terminology In Rule Book
Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta on Monday said they are planning to make amendments to Rules of Procedure in accordance with the GNCTD (Amendment) Act.
Addressing a press conference, Gupta said they are planning to make amendments to Rules Of Procedure and make them at par with Parliament.
The senior leader also said that Rule 280 of the Rules of Procedure will be reviewed and amended to align with the practices of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, in accordance with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) (Amendment) Act, 2021.
The review will also focus on simplifying legislative language and introducing gender-neutral terminology, he said.
Gupta said the amendment in the GNCTD Act in 2023 did not alter the way the house functions in or impose any restrictions on the working of the assembly committees.
"There have been allegations that the Assembly committees cannot examine CAG reports or summon officers, but the powers of the committees have not been reduced," he said.
"The previous government used to summon officials in routine matters. The assembly committees -- privileges committee and the petitions committee-- can call officials and seek explanation in case of a complaint and also look into CAG reports," he added.
He said that a draft is ready and the first meeting of the Rules Committee will be held on June 5.
The review will also focus on simplifying legislative language and introducing gender-neutral terminology, reflecting the Assembly's commitment to inclusivity, clarity, and equality in its operations.
The Eighth Delhi Assembly is approaching its 100th working day on June 4.
Gupta said a special report-card is being prepared to document the milestones, decisions, and reforms undertaken and will be presented on June 6.
He said two new committees have been constituted -- the Committee on the Welfare of Senior Citizens and the Committee on the Welfare of Transgenders and Persons with Disabilities.
"These committees are aimed at strengthening the institutional framework for addressing the concerns of marginalised groups. The rules governing their structure and functioning will be placed before the Rules Committee for detailed review and recommendations," he added.
Best practices from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will be studied and incorporated to ensure effectiveness and alignment with national standards, he added.
He also said the six long-pending reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were tabled in the House during this period. To strengthen audit follow-up mechanisms, the Assembly is developing a dedicated Audit Para Monitoring System (APMS) mobile application.
This digital tool will enable real-time tracking of audit recommendations, improve compliance, and enhance financial oversight, he added. The last amendment to the Rules of Procedure were made in 2017.
Last month, former chief minister Atishi had written to Gupta and said that the public accounts committee does not have the authority to examine CAG reports on public health, liquor supply and vehicular air pollution.
Gupta also said that Rule 280 was not clearly defined and was sometimes used by members for "vested" interests. While he did not mention any party, AAP hit out at him saying it was strange that a person who used every opportunity during last 10 years to disrupt Delhi Legislative Assembly is pointing fingers at others.
"Mr Vijender Gupta is the same person who embarrassed his whole party, who stood on the desk of Legislative Assembly during its session. Mr Gupta should use his office to fulfill his promise to Bus Marshals about permanent jobs," the AAP said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Centre using ministries to sidestep Section 69A safeguards: X to K'taka HC
Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has told the Karnataka High Court that the content takedown and blocking notifications issued by Union ministries were being done without 'application of mind'. These content blocking and takedown orders were not aimed at combating unlawful information of the respective ministries but rather designed to achieve the goals of government and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to circumvent Section 69A of the IT (Information Technology) Act. In a revised petition moved on Tuesday, X said that a content takedown template had been provided by MeitY to several Union ministries, state governments, and the Director General of Police of various jurisdictions in India, to issue blocking orders, which fell outside the established processes of content takedown under Section 69A of the IT Act. The Sahyog portal of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which X termed the 'censorship portal' in its plea, is illegal because it creates a quasi-judicial body by executive fiat and also because it usurps judicial functions, the social media platform argued. It told the court that a quasi-judicial 'process' under the censorship portal, wherein any Central or state executive officer could unilaterally adjudicate whether information was 'unlawful' and direct its removal under threat of loss of safe harbour protection, created a quasi-judicial body because executive officers within the 'censorship portal' exercised powers to determine 'unlawfulness' and impose prejudicial consequences. The MHA's Sahyog portal, which X calls 'censorship portal' throughout its plea, is arbitrary, opaque, and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution, the company argued. X further contended that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules of 2021 was unconstitutional as it exceeded the limitations set by its parent statute, the IT Act, and thus violated the settled principles that subordinate legislation cannot exceed the limits of its enabling Act. Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 states that an intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content through a court order or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, must not host, store, or publish such information. This rule is connected to Section 79, which provides intermediaries with protection from liability for user-generated content, but this protection can be revoked if they fail to remove unlawful content after being notified. Centre's reply In response, the Centre vehemently denied that the ministries are issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. The Centre explained that many government departments/ministries have a NIC office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC was directing the functioning of all the ministries, departments and courts, it said. The Central government further added that X was merely trying to conjure non-existent wrongdoing to bolster its arguments. Defending Rule 3(1)(d), the Centre said that it had sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse. The first proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) states that notifications under the rule may only be issued by the authorised agencies notified by the appropriate government. The requirement imposed on internet intermediaries not to 'host, store or publish' any unlawful information under Rule 3(1)(d) does not amount to a blocking order, the Centre said, adding that in case the intermediary continues to host, store or publish such information, the only change is that it cannot claim immunity under Section 79 and therefore may be prosecuted in court about that particular information. The 'lifting' of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the Central government said. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 talks about the rights of a user of an intermediary platform, not of an intermediary themselves, the Centre said. The Karnataka High Court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, challenging unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC to hear Solicitor General's arguments against bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
New Delhi [India], July 1 (ANI): The Delhi High Court is set to hear arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused in the 2020 North East Delhi Riots case on Tuesday. The case involved allegations of a larger conspiracy, with 18 accused individuals chargesheeted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and two accused are absconding. The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, at the request of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the Delhi police, adjourned the matter for hearing on July 9. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared in person, and SG Mehta appeared through video conferencing. The High Court is hearing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others. They challenged the trial court orders dismissing their bail, citing the embargo under UAPA. Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted regular bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021, after the court allowed their appeals against the trial court order. The trial court also granted bail to the accused, Ishrat Jahan. The accused are alleged to have hatched a conspiracy leading to the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries in the North East Delhi Riots in February 2020. Delhi Police claim that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were key conspirators, with evidence including WhatsApp chats and speeches. More than 700 FIRs were registered against several accused persons in different police stations of North East Delhi and other areas. The Delhi High Court has previously questioned the Delhi Police's approach, asking whether organizing protests is enough to invoke UAPA charges and seeking concise evidence to support their claims. This case is at the stage of arguements on charges. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Manipur Congress MP alleges he was stopped from visiting area in his constituency
IMPHAL: Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, Lok Sabha MP from Inner Manipur, has said that he was stopped from visiting Phougakchou-Ikhai Makha Leikai Keithel in Bishnupur district, which falls within his parliamentary constituency, on Monday. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, Congress Lok Sabha MP from Inner Manipur. The Congress MP said it happened despite the heavy presence of security forces, including the Indian Army, and alleged that there was an 'imaginary and unconstitutional buffer zone', which violates Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and fosters communal division, in the strife-torn state. Speaking to the media at his Imphal residence on Tuesday, Bimol sai dthat preventing an Indian citizen, let alone an elected Member of Parliament from freely moving within his own constituency, was a blatant breach of constitutional rights. He accused security forces of implicitly supporting the buffer zone concept, which, he claimed, was fueling division between communities in Manipur. 'The enforcement of an imaginary and unconstitutional buffer zone reflects a communally driven agenda that is deepening divisions in Manipur,' Bimol said, adding that the government had already clarified that no such zone officially exists. Despite this, he claimed, security forces continue to act as if one does. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, the Congress MP wrote: 'I, an elected Member of Lok Sabha, was stopped from visiting Phougakchou-Ikhai Makha Leikai Keithel in Bishnupur District, which falls within my parliamentary constituency (Inner Manipur) today, despite the heavy presence of security forces, including the Indian Army. Tellingly, civilians belonging to other communities (such as Pangals) are allowed to travel through the same place right in front of me. It speaks of the clandestine ways through which the state has been nurturing a communally founded division of Manipur and enforcing an unconstitutional buffer zone.' Bimol further clarified that his attempt to visit the market area was not provocative and accused the security forces, specifically the 6 Assam Rifles, who erected the barricade in May 2023, of contributing to ongoing tensions. The so-called buffer zone was initially set up to control mobs but has since become a symbol of communal segregation, he said. 'Manipur is not divided by communal ideology,' he said. The MP further said, 'For the past few months, farmers have been facing attacks from armed militants intended to instill fear and discourage agricultural activity.' He cited two recent incidents, one in Imphal East on June 16 and another in Bishnupur on June 20. In the Imphal East incident, he alleged that members of the Kuki community prevented Meitei farmers from working in their fields, claiming the land was disputed and did not belong to the Meiteis. In the second case, a farmer sustained bullet injuries after allegedly being attacked by armed Kuki militants at Phubala, located on the volatile border between Meitei-majority Bishnupur and Kuki-dominated Churachandpur.
