For now, Greater Bengaluru unlikely to go beyond BBMP limits
: The govt is all set to put on hold the move to expand Bengaluru's civic area to 1,000-plus sqkm by including peripheral villages within the jurisdiction of the proposed
Greater Bengaluru Authority
(GBA). Instead, it will retain the current extent of 709 sqkm.
The state cabinet, which will meet Friday, is expected to discuss the matter with a decision on the date of implementation of Greater
Bengaluru Governance Act-2024
, which was notified on April 24. Following the passing of the new legislation, delineation of GBA's boundaries had come up for discussion, with many villages on the outskirts of the city expressing interest in getting detached from gram panchayats and being included within the city civic body's jurisdiction.
The
BBMP
Restructuring Committee, in its first interim report, had suggested the GBA area cover 1,307 sqkm (including BBMP and BDA areas). The committee led by MLA Rizwan Arshad, which submitted the latest report on restructuring Bengaluru city administration, spoke about creating new corporations to govern while not specifying the proposed extent of the city's civic area.
Following this, several legislators in the city and Bengaluru Rural district submitted suggestions seeking the inclusion of some villages into Bengaluru. That had a ripple effect on the realty sector with land prices shooting up in villages on the city's periphery in anticipation of becoming an integral part of Bengaluru's civic administrative system. However, the proposed inclusion and expansion of GBA area will not happen immediately.
A source said: "Initially, the existing BBMP limits will be considered as the jurisdiction of Greater Bengaluru. In future, decisions will be made regarding the inclusion of gram panchayats and towns on the city's outskirts." Although there were proposals to create three city corporations for more efficient governance, the final decision rests with the govt.
The govt notified Greater Bengaluru Governance Act-2024 on April 24, which outlines a three-tier civic governance system consisting of Greater Bengaluru Authority, city corporations and ward committees. The Act allows for the formation of up to seven city corporations.
In fact, the opposition BJP had criticised the govt's move to form Greater Bengaluru, calling it a strategy to centralise power and influence the upcoming civic body elections. For over four-and-a-half years, BBMP has been functioning without an elected body, and while the Congress govt promised that the city will be governed by an elected body once Greater Bengaluru comes into existence, the timeline for this remains unclear.
On holding elections for newly formed Greater Bengaluru, the source said, "There are proposals to trifurcate BBMP limits into three civic corporations. Once formed, elections to the new local bodies are likely to happen by the year-end. Prior to deciding on the elections, there are many modalities that need to be completed which include jurisdiction of the wards, reservation and others."
On other hand, BJP has already explored legal options to hold civic elections as per the BBMP Act by approaching the court and plans to challenge GBA's formation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
185 displaced persons granted Indian citizenship under CAA in Gujarat
After years of uncertainty, 185 displaced persons from Pakistan were granted Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The recipients, many of whom have been residing in Gujarat's Rajkot, Morbi, and Kutch districts for several years, were handed over citizenship documents at an event in Rajkot. 'You are now citizens of the great nation - India,' Gujarat Minister of State for Home Affairs Harsh Sanghavi told the gathering. The announcement was met with chants of 'Bharat mata ki jai (Victory to mother India)' from the audience, with several recipients becoming emotional as they received their certificates. The beneficiaries included men, women, and children who migrated from Pakistan citing religious persecution and lack of security. Many belong to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities - groups recognised under the CAA as eligible for naturalisation. Among those granted citizenship was a young woman doctor who had completed her medical education in Pakistan. 'Just as she was about to begin her career, her family was forced to flee the country,' Mr. Sanghavi said. 'After years of waiting in India without legal status, she now holds official Indian citizenship,' he said. Mr. Sanghavi added that she was just one example of the many lives impacted by the law. Other beneficiaries included daily wage earners, homemakers, and elderly persons who had lived without formal citizenship for several years. Mr. Sanghavi said the Government of India is committed to supporting those who have suffered due to religious discrimination in neighbouring countries. 'This is not just the distribution of a certificate - it is the return of dignity, safety, and rights,' he said. He added that India, guided by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), respects all religions and safeguards the rights of the vulnerable. He credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the implementation of the CAA, calling it a step that has saved lives and restored identity to many. Mr. Sanghavi also directed local officials to facilitate the integration of the new citizens into government systems and ensure their access to schemes related to education, healthcare, housing, and livelihood. 'From today, your children will grow up with access to the same opportunities as any other Indian citizen,' he told them. Several beneficiaries expressed gratitude after receiving their citizenship certificates. 'From today, I am part of India. I feel safe. I feel recognised,' said Asha Ben Becharbhai, a resident of Rajkot. Bhavna Ben Maheshwari, who has lived in Rajkot for the past 10 years and has been working for the past eight, said, 'Now I can say without hesitation - I am an Indian citizen. I thank the government for supporting us.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Motion to remove Justice Varma to begin in Lok Sabha; ‘No doubts remain,' says govt
The notice for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma is likely to be taken up in the Lok Sabha, with that 'received' by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in the Rajya Sabha unlikely to be considered. The announcement by Dhankhar, as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, that he had 'received' a notice for the removal of Justice Varma from 63 Opposition MPs is believed to have triggered the series of events leading to his resignation as VP. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said: 'All the political parties have agreed that the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma has to be a joint call. Now there should be no issue with regard to which House it has to be moved. Once we have agreed that it will be moved in the Lok Sabha… it will be concurred in the Rajya Sabha as per rule… So we should not remain under any doubt that the discussion and the motion, everything, will begin in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha, as per rule, will give concurrence and there will be a thorough discussion in the Rajya Sabha also.' This was decided by consensus among all parties, Rijiju emphasised. 'The agreement amongst all parties is that the motion for removal of Justice Varma will begin in the Lok Sabha. It will be taken up in the Lok Sabha and then subsequently it will be concurred by the Rajya Sabha. That is the agreement of all the parties.' While presiding over the Rajya Sabha Monday, hours before he resigned, Dhankhar said he had 'received a notice of motion' from the Opposition for constituting a statutory committee for removal of Justice Varma. He added: 'I direct the Secretary General to find out whether a similar motion has been moved in the House of People, the Lok Sabha… This is being done for the purpose that under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, the procedure (in such a case) is different.' Under the Act, if a notice to remove a judge is presented in both the Houses of Parliament on the same day, then the committee for inquiry is to be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Since Dhankhar's resignation, the post of Chairman is vacant. Having made its intent clear to act on impeaching Justice Varma – over the alleged recovery of a stack of notes from his home – the government, which had initiated its notice in the Lok Sabha, was taken by surprise by Dhankhar's move. The government notice, signed by 145 MPs, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, had been handed over to the Lok Sabha Speaker earlier in the day. Dhankhar's move meant the Opposition could steal the government limelight on an issue of crucial import, dealing with judicial accountability. Sources told The Indian Express that officials in the Secretariats of the two Houses are now verifying whether remarks made by Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chair on the Opposition notice were 'legally valid'. That rests on determining whether Dhankhar's statement meant that the notice had only been 'received' by the Chair, or 'accepted' by the Chair. As per one line of opinion, Dhankhar's remarks do not amount to 'admission' of the Opposition notice as they 'didn't follow the formalities'. If the notice in the Rajya Sabha is determined to be only 'received' by the House and not yet 'accepted', the motion in the Lok Sabha will be considered to be at play. Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary said a mere announcement by Dhankhar didn't mean much, as there is nothing in the process for removal of a judge concerning that. 'When a presiding officer receives a notice, he or she has to make a preliminary examination into the notice, look into the evidence annexed by them and decide the admissibility. They can reject or accept it. In the issue of this notice, the Chairman (Dhankhar) does not seem to have done any of these,' Achary said, adding that 'there is no requirement regarding reading it (the notice) in the House'. Sources said the government is also apprehensive about legal issues if Dhankhar's remarks are considered as 'acceptance' of the notice to remove Justice Varma, as this would entail setting up a joint committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman to probe the charges against him. Since the office of the Vice President is currently vacant, the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha is Deputy Chairman Harivansh. Whether Harivansh can take the place of the Chairman in constituting the committee is uncertain legal territory. The constitutional provisions regarding the removal of a judge mention specifically the 'Chairman of the Rajya Sabha' and not the 'Vice President'. But, sources said, the government does not want any room for a legal challenge, delaying the impeachment process against Justice Varma. But, if the notice is considered as accepted only in the Lok Sabha, then it is up to Speaker Om Birla to appoint the three-member inquiry committee, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The committee is required to have one member who is either the CJI or a judge of the Supreme Court; a member from among the Chief Justices or judges of high courts; and a distinguished jurist. One reason the government believes it is on solid ground in not considering the Rajya Sabha notice is that there are doubts whether it was 'complete' or 'valid', since it did not have any annexures or supporting material attached to make a case for impeaching Justice Varma. The motion reportedly only cites then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's communication to the President and Prime Minister calling for impeachment of Justice Varma, along with the findings of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report. Sources point out that the Presidential secretariat had communicated with the Lok Sabha Speaker regarding this inquiry report, and not the Rajya Sabha. However, Achary said the law itself does not require attached annexures to accept a notice.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Delhi HC refuses bail to man accused of being ISIS operative
New Delhi, Jul 25 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has refused bail to an alleged ISIS member accused of procuring arms and ammunition for the proscribed outfit and using social media platforms to promote it. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a trial court's detention orders saying it was not mechanical in nature and said accused Mohd Rizwan Ashraf could not have been released on account of ongoing investigation as releasing him and others at a crucial stage would have impeded the probe. 'This court is satisfied that the trial court has applied its mind to the grounds which have been set forth. The trial court has categorically observed that the investigation progressed substantially during the (remand) extensions that had been granted by it and the investigation had not been stagnant. The order of the trial court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion," the bench said in its judgment passed on Thursday. Ashraf was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the case on October 1, 2023 under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He challenged various orders of the trial court extending his custody on various occasions, including on February 24, 2024 when his judicial custody was extended by 25 days. On the same day, the trial court had dismissed his plea for default bail. Ashraf's counsel submitted that the orders were passed by the trial court in a mechanical and perfunctory manner and did not indicate any individual assessment of his role. The counsel argued the NIA failed to demonstrate why Ashraf's continued detention was necessary for the purpose of investigation. The high court said three accused persons, including Ashraf, were active members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and they were propagating the ideology of the organisation and trying to recruit youth for its objectives. 'At the time when the remand orders were being considered, material was being unearthed to establish that the accused, including the appellant (Ashraf), were conducting recce at various Indian cities including, but not limited to, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Surat for terrorist activities. The order observed aside from India, conspiracy was also being hatched in other countries. 'A money trail from Maldives was also being investigated. Material on record indicates that investigation was also underway to find out about other associates of the accused," the bench said. PTI SKV SKV AMK AMK view comments 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.
