logo
Former foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla, historian Meenakshi Jain among 4 nominated to Rajya Sabha

Former foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla, historian Meenakshi Jain among 4 nominated to Rajya Sabha

Indian Express13-07-2025
Former foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Special Public Prosecutor in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case Ujjwal Nikam, Kerala BJP leader C Sadanandan Master and historian Meenakshi Jain have been nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
In a notification issued late Saturday night , the Union Home Ministry said the President has nominated the four to the Rajya Sabha.
'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 80 of the Constitution of India, read with clause (3) of that article, the President is pleased to nominate to th Council of States the following persons to fill the vacancies caused due to retirement of nominated members:- Shri Ujjwal Deorao Nikam, Shri C. Sadanandan Master, Shri Harsh Vardhan Shringla and Dr. Meenakshi Jain,' the notification said.
The President nominates 12 people to the Rajya Sabha, who are people of eminence in various fields.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks

India Today

time27 minutes ago

  • India Today

Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch

What happens if both Houses pass motion for removal of judge on same day?
What happens if both Houses pass motion for removal of judge on same day?

India Today

time35 minutes ago

  • India Today

What happens if both Houses pass motion for removal of judge on same day?

On the opening day of the Monsoon Session, members of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted notices seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, prompting the initiation of a constitutionally mandated inquiry process into the Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has since resigned, acknowledged receipt of the notice in the Upper House, thereby setting in motion the process under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Justice Varma came under scrutiny after large bundles of burnt currency notes were discovered at his residence in Delhi in March this Judges Inquiry Act lays out the process for investigating allegations against a sitting judge. A notice for removal must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha. In this instance, the motion was submitted in both Houses on the same day — a procedural requirement for joint action under the Act. Under Section 3 of the Act, the presiding officers — the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha — must first consult relevant authorities before admitting the motion. If admitted by both Houses, they are then required to jointly constitute a three-member inquiry committee will include a Supreme Court judge (who may also be the Chief Justice of India), a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee is tasked with framing definite charges and presenting them to the judge. Justice Varma will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond in cases alleging incapacity, the judge may be directed to undergo a medical examination. The central government may also be asked to appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the judge if requested by the presiding completing its inquiry, the committee must submit a detailed report with findings on each charge. This report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the earliest possible simultaneous submission of notices in both Houses ensures that the process moves forward under strict constitutional guidelines. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, and both Houses adopt the motion for removal by a two-thirds majority, the President may remove the judge.- EndsTune InMust Watch

Karnataka high court declines to issue directions on dropping of Betta Halasuru Metro station in Bengaluru
Karnataka high court declines to issue directions on dropping of Betta Halasuru Metro station in Bengaluru

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

Karnataka high court declines to issue directions on dropping of Betta Halasuru Metro station in Bengaluru

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court Wednesday declined to issue any direction regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the dropping of Betta Halasuru Cross Metro station along the Krishnarajapuram - Kempegowda International Airport route. The question of whether the station is to be constructed at a particular place is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision on the manner in which a Metro line is to be constructed lies solely in the reserve of the concerned authority, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Justice CM Joshi observed in their order. "We accordingly dispose of this petition by directing BMRCL to consider the representations filed by the petitioners," the bench further observed while disposing of the PIL filed by BG Nanjundappa and four others. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The petitioners claimed they submitted a series of representations in April-May 2025 to the MD of BMRCL, deputy commissioner of Bengaluru urban district, chief minister, and revenue minister, but no action was taken over the same. "Metro rail is constructed mainly for providing a speedy and convenient travel facility to the general public and reducing traffic. By dropping the proposed station at Betta Halasuru, the authorities are putting to inconvenience the people of about 20 villages and about 2 lakh people every day. Students, working-class people, and businessmen will have to use their own vehicles as there will be no Metro stations for about 8km," the petitioners stated in their PIL.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store