Applications for new rice cards from today
He said other services like change of address, joining of new members, deletion of members, division of cards and surrender of cards will begin and ration card holders can visit their nearest ward secretariats to get these services, he added. He said new services can be available on Whatsapp governance after one week.
He said the government could not issue new ration cards due to two important reasons. He said the due to the Election code in 2024 the Election Commission issued orders not to sanction the new cards. Minister said later the Supreme Court issued guidelines for making EKYC mandatory.
He said 94.4 percent EKYC process completed in the State. Manohar said 1.46 crore rice cards are in the state and 4.24 crore have enrolled their names. He said 3.94 crore have applied for the changes in the rice cards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Ten years after US Supreme Court's ‘Obergefell' judgment legalised same-sex marriage, an erosion of LGBTQIA+ rights
Written by Kanav N Sahgal June 26 marked the 10-year anniversary of Obergefell vs Hodges — the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage in the country. While some activists celebrated the anniversary, others decried how drastically the legal and political landscape has regressed for LGBTQIA+ people since that historic victory. Backlash against the LGBTQIA+ community, especially transgender individuals, is on the rise across the United States. But more tellingly, the US Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the years since Obergefell has shifted sharply to the right — limiting rather than expanding LGBTQIA+ rights in a range of arenas: Education, public accommodation law and, more recently, healthcare access. During this time, the Court has also routinely upheld religious objections to LGBTQIA+ equality in four separate cases — most recently, just days ago, in the case of Mahmoud vs Taylor, where the Court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school instruction involving LGBTQIA+-themed storybooks based on religious free exercise rights. Two previous cases — one in 2018 (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and another in 2023 (303 Creative LLC vs Elenis) — involved business owners who operated public accommodations and approached the Court seeking permission to deny same-sex couples' access to services. In both cases, the Supreme Court sided with the business owners, holding that enforcing anti-discrimination laws in these contexts would violate their First Amendment rights. In another case from 2021, Fulton vs City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. This list is not exhaustive — and does not even include the Court's recent rulings that have sharply curtailed legal protections for transgender people. But why this shift? One obvious reason is that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed drastically over the past decade. During his first term as president, Donald Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — giving the nine-member bench a comfortable conservative supermajority. These three joined three other conservative-leaning justices already on the bench, forming a solid conservative bloc of six. This left only three Democratic appointees on the Court, unable to influence outcomes unless at least two conservative justices defected to their side. Also, unlike in previous decades, it has now become increasingly rare to find justices who cross ideological lines or serve as moderating influences. In the past, several justices — though appointed by Republican presidents — maintained a degree of independence in their rulings. Take, for example, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom, despite being Republican appointees, did at various times cast decisive swing votes in landmark LGBTQIA+ rights cases. Justice Kennedy famously authored the majority opinion in Obergefell and provided the crucial fifth vote that allowed the decision to take effect. Yet, just a few years later, he ruled against LGBTQIA+ plaintiffs in Masterpiece Cakeshop, authoring the majority opinion there as well. Similarly, Justice O'Connor cast the fifth and deciding vote in Bowers vs Hardwick (1986), a case that upheld laws criminalising sodomy. But in 2003, she joined the majority in Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned Bowers and effectively decriminalised consensual same-sex intimacy nationwide. It would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to imagine or expect the current crop of conservative justices to display that kind of openness to LGBTQIA+ issues today. But a second, less frequently discussed reason for the weakening of jurisprudence on LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States comes from the Obergefell decision itself. While Obergefell legalised same-sex marriage nationwide, it also included a carveout that acknowledged the rights of individuals with 'decent and honourable religious or philosophical' objections to continue holding dissenting views on same-sex marriage. Ironically, this one sentence — arguably obiter dicta, and therefore not necessarily binding precedent — has since been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court's conservative majority again and again. In Mahmoud, for instance, the conservative bloc relied on Obergefell to explicitly justify parents' religious objections to LGBTQIA+ themed story books being read to their children. In a similar vein, the conservative bloc's resistance to substantive due process claims in the context of LGBTQIA+ rights has also intensified in recent times, most notably since the reversal of Roe vs Wade (1973) in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation (2022). There, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell, suggesting rather unequivocally that if the logic employed in Dobbs were to be applied consistently, then the constitutional foundation for same-sex marriage may also fail to survive renewed judicial scrutiny. Ten years after Obergefell, therefore, same-sex marriage remains a legal right — but the broader legal framework supporting it has been deeply eroded by the US Supreme Court, and there appears to be little hope for reversal in the near future. The writer is a researcher at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
Scroll.in
21 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Aadhaar, ration card can't be included as proof for Bihar voter roll revision: EC to Supreme Court
Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards and ration cards cannot be included as standalone valid documents for the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court on Monday. In a counter-affidavit filed in the court, the poll panel also stated that a person's citizenship will 'not terminate' on being found ineligible for registration in the electoral rolls. This came in response to the Supreme Court's July 10 order that asked the Election Commission to consider Aadhaar cards, voter identity cards and ration cards as valid proof for the electoral roll revision exercise 'in the interest of justice'. The court was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Election Commission's decision to carry out the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, which are expected to take place in October or November. The petitioners had challenged the poll panel's exclusion of the Aadhaar card and voter ID from the list of documents specified as proof of citizenship for those whose names were not included in the 2003 electoral roll. The Election Commission filed its affidavit in response to the petitions on Monday. On Aadhaar, voter ID The poll panel said in its affidavit that Aadhaar does not 'constitute proof of Indian citizenship'. 'However, this is not to say that Aadhaar cannot be used to supplement other documents to prove eligibility,' the Election Commission stated. The poll panel reiterated that the list of 11 documents that could be submitted as proof of citizenship was 'indicative and not exhaustive'. The enumeration forms include a voter's Electoral Photo Identity Card number and have an optional Aadhaar column, noted the Election Commission. It also told the court that there is a 'widespread existence of fake ration cards', which is why it has not been included in the list of the 11 documents. However, the electoral registration officer 'is obligated to consider' all documents presented as proof of eligibility, including the ration card, the Election Commission added. 'Decision to accept or reject the documents is dependent on the satisfaction of the electoral registration officer…and such decisions will be taken on a case-to-case basis,' said the poll panel. On including the voter ID card as a valid proof, it said the document is prepared on the basis of the electoral rolls. 'Since the electoral rolls itself are being revised, the production of the Electoral Photo Identity Card will make the whole exercise futile,' according to the Election Commission. The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list will need to submit proof of eligibility to vote. This means that 2.9 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore voters – or about 37% of the electors – will have to submit documentary evidence. Voters born before July 1, 1987, must show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, will need proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. If the officers are satisfied with the details provided, the voters will be re-enrolled to a new voter list by electoral registration officers. If not, they will be removed from the voter lists. A draft roll will be published on August 1 and the final roll will be out on September 30. On July 2, eleven INDIA bloc parties told the Election Commission that the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls risked disenfranchising more than 2.5 crore voters, as they may not be able to produce the necessary documents. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on July 6 defended the exercise, claiming that the exercise had to be carried out as no one was satisfied with the current voter rolls. 'ECI competent to ask for relevant documents' The poll panel also stated on Monday that there was no violation of law or fundamental rights of any voter in the electoral roll revision process. 'The SIR [special intensive revision' adds to the purity of elections by weeding out inelgible persons from electoral rolls,' said the Election Commission. It added that the petitioners' arguments that only the Union government was can determine 'all aspects of citizenship, including its existence, is patently false, misconceived, erroneous and unsustainable'. On July 10, the Supreme Court verbally observed that only the Ministry of Home Affairs, and not the Election Commission, can remove non-citizens from the electoral rolls. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, had argued that the special intensive revision improperly shifts the burden of proof from the Election Commission to the voter.
Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court agrees to hear Maha govt's plea against acquittal in 2006 Mumbai train blasts case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on July 24 the Maharashtra government's plea challenging the Bombay High Court decision to acquit 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai agreed to urgently list the matter for hearing on Thursday, after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned it. Seeking an urgent hearing on the state government's special leave petition (SLP), SG Mehta said that it was a 'serious matter' requiring the top court's consideration on 'some important issues'. In a major ruling delivered on Monday, the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 accused, of whom five were on death sentence and seven others on life imprisonment, in the July 11, 2006, Mumbai blast case. Directing their immediate release from jail, the acquittal order passed by a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and S. Chandak came as a major blow to the investigation agencies. The Justice Kilor-led Bench castigated the shoddy probe prosecution, opining that the prosecution failed to even establish the type of bombs used in the crime. The 12 accused -- incarcerated for 19 years -- succeeded in establishing before the Bombay High Court the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. As a result, it held the statements inadmissible, saying, "On all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed." Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis termed the Bombay High Court verdict as "shocking", saying that the Maharashtra government will move the Supreme Court against it. On July 11, 2006, seven bomb serial blasts in packed Mumbai local trains brought the maximum city to its knees within 11 minutes. The terror attack left 189 dead and over 800 injured. Earlier in 2015, a special court convicted 12 individuals in the case, sentencing five -- Faisal Shaikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan -- to death, while the remaining seven were given life imprisonment. The prosecution had argued that the attack was planned by Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, and carried out by operatives of Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba with help from the Students' Islamic Movement of India, a banned Indian group.
