Latest news with #Janata
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's secular Constitution, even without the word
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar on Saturday called the Emergency-era addition of expressions 'socialist' and 'secular' to the Constitution's Preamble a 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan'. Leaders such as Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and RSS general secretary Dattareya Hosabale have echoed the VP's critique in recent days. The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. Preamble & 42nd Amendment The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. These were just a few of a whole host of changes made by the 42nd Amendment, which introduced the chapter on Fundamental Duties, added new Directive Principles on State Policy, diluted powers of judicial review, and froze delimitation. Behind these changes These changes reflected Indira Gandhi's political objectives during the Emergency, a 21-month period during which the Prime Minister ruled by decree. * Since the 1950s, the tussle between Parliament and the judiciary had revolved around land reform: the political class saw the Court's upholding of fundamental rights, especially the right to property, as placing individual rights over collective rights of people. With Indira Gandhi taking an explicit leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and romped to victory in Lok Sabha polls later that year with 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') as her campaign slogan — the inclusion of 'socialist' was to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. As the 42nd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons read, the addition was meant to 'make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socioeconomic reforms…'. * The reason for adding 'secular' to the Preamble was not as explicitly spelt out. But it came at a time when the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, was emerging as a potent political force. In the 1967 general elections, the Jana Sangh had won 35 seats, its best performance till then, and the Congress' tally dropped to 283. While the Congress bounced back in 1971, the Jana Sangh nonetheless remained among Indira Gandhi's foremost political opponents through the Emergency, when a number of its leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani were jailed. 'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist… All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira had told Lok Sabha. * The word 'integrity' was brought into the Preamble at a time when Indira's political rhetoric — and justification for imposing the Emergency — centred around 'forces dividing the nation'. 'When we talk of integrity, it is really the quality or the state of being undivided… Whereas a nation is composed of the people and the country, when we talk of the integrity of the country, we talk of… maintaining the indivisibility of the country along with the unity of the nation,' then law Minister H R Gokhale had said in the Parliament while speaking on the Bill. The difference they made While symbolic, the additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. This view has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court. Even before the 42nd amendment altered the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with. 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states. In the 1994 Bommai ruling, that dealt with Centre-State relations, the SC again upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas. 'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice — social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said. In November 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the addition of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Constitution. 'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided [they] did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause … for challenging this constitutional amendment…,' the Bench said. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Chasing the ghosts of the Emergency
Jun 29, 2025 10:11 PM IST A debate is brewing over the insertion of two terms — secular and socialist — into the Preamble of the Constitution during the Emergency. First, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath called it 'a brutal assault on the soul of India'. A day later, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said these terms were inserted when 'the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary ' and asked for a review. Vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar and several BJP leaders have joined the debate — some have described secularism as anti-Sanatana Dharma and a Western concept. The Opposition has criticised these remarks as evidence of the present regime's intent to subvert the Constitution. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime (REUTERS) Secular and socialist were added to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. It was done, probably, to emphasise the Emergency regime's political stance: the then PM Indira Gandhi wanted to be seen as the guardian of secular values, which she claimed, was under threat from RSS (and Jamaat-e-Islami and Ananda Marga). Under her, India aligned with the Soviet Union, and she wanted the government to be perceived as committed to socialism. A close reading of the 42nd Amendment will reveal that these additions were more for optics and masked the serious damages made to the basic structure of the Constitution. For instance, the amendment toyed with the legal architecture of the country by reducing the powers of the courts and making the judiciary subservient to the political executive. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which delineates the powers between the Centre and the states, was tampered with to shift the federal balance in favour of the Centre. Fundamental Duties were introduced and the Directive Principles were given precedence over Fundamental Rights, which, in effect, subverted the pact between the citizens and the States, with rights relegated to the background. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime. No party, perhaps, wanted to be seen as anti-secular or anti-poor (in the Indian context, socialism means being pro-poor). Nor were the changes in the Seventh Schedule, delineating powers between the Union and the states, undone. Some of the challenges to federalism (especially evident now) can be traced back to these changes. If any aspect of the 42nd Amendment needs review, it is this. Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!
New Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Aftershocks of 1975 Emergency: When Referendum almost made it to Constitution
NEW DELHI: Founding fathers of the Constitution of India fought hard to keep 'Referendum' out of it, but it almost made it to the statute in 1978 in the aftermath of Emergency. The then Janata government proposed 'referendum' being part of the Constitution as an additional 'safeguard' to thwart any repeat of Emergency-like situation and even got it passed in the Lok Sabha, but the idea had to be dropped as it could not cut the mustard in the Rajya Sabha. Several Janata Party leaders and their allies were also not very comfortable with the idea of going back to the public despite having their own government being in power. The Constitution Amendment Bill of 1978, proposed by the then Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, cited the Emergency as an example when fundamental rights, including those of life and liberty, granted to citizens by the Constitution can be taken away by a transient majority. It said that it was necessary to provide adequate safeguards against the recurrence of such a contingency in future and to ensure to people themselves an effective voice in determining the form of government under which they are to live. The bill sought that "certain changes" in the Constitution can be made only if they are approved by the people of India by a majority of votes at a referendum in which at least 51 percent of the electorate participate. It would have been applicable for Constitutional amendments that were capable of impairing its secular or democratic character, abridging or taking away fundamental rights prejudicing or impeding free and fair elections on the basis of adult suffrage and compromising the independence of judiciary. Bhushan faced strong opposition in Parliament, including from some of his own colleagues, and many asked was it not akin to not trusting the mandate already given by people while electing the government. Some MPs also raised question of huge expenses that could be incurred by going to the public again and again, while some suspected a "referendum" could be used by the government in power to push majority agenda like imposition of Hindi etc. A few supported the idea but said the referendum should be for 75 percent of voters, while a few others went out to demand that the Constitution also mostly provide for a referendum provision giving people the power to recall an MP or a government if they were not satisfied with their work. While the long-winding debates in the two houses saw several interesting friendly and not-so-friendly exchanges among the MPs, the idea had to be dropped with the minister himself admitting on several occasions that he could probably not project the idea properly. This was also the first time in the country's parliamentary history that a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by the Lok Sabha was returned by the Rajya Sabha and the bill had to be changed according to the portions rejected by the house of elders. During one such exchange, he asked AR Antulay, then Congress Rajya Sabha MP, if he would accept if it is passed by two-third majority of two houses of Parliament that he was a "small girl" and should there not be a provision to get it corrected. Antulay responded jokingly what the minister will do if it is passed by Parliament that Bhushan is "an old girl." Bhushan replied that he would not challenge it, to which Antulay replied still he was not convinced that the Supreme Court should get into it. Bhupesh Gupta, a Left MP, joined the banter and said that he was quite sure Antulay will welcome it if the Supreme Court says he is a small girl. In the Lok Sabha also, Bhushan's referendum proposal triggered an intense debate and some of the most interesting nuggets came from socialist MP HV Kamath, who was also a member of the Constituent Assembly when the Constitution was being framed. Kamath, known for joining almost all discussions in the Lok Sabha and in the Constituent Assembly before that, suggested to Bhushan that the referendum should be successful only with 75 percent of votes though he could also agree to one-third support of electors. In the Constituent Assembly, where he was among the few members to strongly oppose any Emergency provision being added, he had also suggested that voters of a constituency should be given power to recall their MP or for failure to properly discharge his or her duties. Kamath's proposal was rejected. The original draft of the Constitution did not provide for direct voting by people on law-making matters through a referendum, but several members in the Constituent Assembly called for it on issues like national language, national script, national anthem, international numerals and cow slaughter. Some members said that a referendum could empower sovereignty of people and address adverse issues arising from absolute power, while others proposed it as a tool to handle situations when legislature and executive are not on the same page. Mahavir Tyagi, elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces on a Congress Party ticket, advocated for the Constitution empowering people with the right to overthrow a government which acts destructively against the rights of people. Several members cited examples from other countries, including Switzerland, US, Canada and Ireland to call for a referendum provision, but others opposed it vehemently as unpractical, expensive and restrictive. President Rajendra Prasad rejected all those demands citing lack of any provision for referendum in the Constitution. BR Ambedkar was very categorical: "The Draft Constitution has eliminated the elaborate and difficult procedures such as a decision by a convention or a referendum." He said the powers of amendment are left with the central and provincial legislatures. Almost similar logics came up in Parliament nearly 30 years later in 1978 in favour of referendum, but they met similar opposition with one additional point made by most anti-referendum voices -- even general elections hardly see more than 50 percent voting and expecting more than 50 percent electors voting in a referendum was unthinkable.
Indian Express
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Srinath Raghavan at Idea Exchange: ‘Institutional rules of the game were considerably weakened even before the Emergency'
Historian Srinath Raghavan on the build-up to the Emergency, its transformative impact on Indian polity and the lessons that we should learn. The session was moderated by Chief of Political Bureau Manoj CG. Manoj CG: Fifty years ago, India had its first brush with authoritarian rule, what we call the Emergency. Looking at the long arc of Mrs Indira Gandhi's years as Prime Minister then, how do you see her shadow in 2025, be it on politics, her party – the Congress – institutions, nation and the concept of leadership? I wanted to situate her long stints in power and out of power from 1966 until her assassination. And the idea of doing that was to get away from the Emergency itself, which tends to be the focal point of discussions. Important things happened both before and after the Emergency, which I think left a longer imprint. When we say that Indira Gandhi did something, we tend to think of it as something done intentionally. As a historian, I think it's also useful to remember the consequences of what her actions were rather than simply the intentions behind them. It's important to understand what she accomplished. Three things have cast a long shadow on politics, democracy and our political economy. First, we went from a period of more or less one-party dominant rule under the Congress to one where the Congress became a dominant player, but in a much more competitive environment. The competitiveness of Indian democracy that we see from the fourth general elections — 1967 onwards — is a very important feature. That very competitiveness led to a disregard of rules, norms and procedures, which are as important as elections in structuring democracy. The Emergency is the most extreme and shocking example of that kind of disregard for the rules of electoral democracy. The second aspect is strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis the legislature and the judiciary. The Janata government did attempt to undo some of it but still the overall institutional balance of power remains tilted towards the executive. This is true even of coalition governments. Mrs Gandhi had an ability to make charismatic, Caesarist appeals directly to the electorate. So the function and role of the party system itself underwent a very significant change in her time. The party was no longer the instrument which aggregated people's preferences and revealed them during the elections. Rather, it supported the political appeal of the leader. A similar model of leadership, where the charisma of an older patriarch follows on to the next generation, is seen not only in national politics but also state politics. The third impact was on political economy. There was a somewhat unwilling and unwitting move towards liberalisation of the economy, which actually started from about 1975, even before the Emergency. That process was important because it put India on this long road towards liberalisation. Though I wouldn't give much credit to her on that. She left her own impression on the welfare economy instead. We saw targetted schemes aimed at particular groups because they came under certain thresholds. The poverty line, for instance, became the longest and the most important imprint. And it continues. Manoj CG: Do you think her decision to choose Sanjay Gandhi first, and the Congress party's decision to bring in Rajiv Gandhi after her killing, laid the template of dynastic politics in India? The Congress party that elected Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister in 1966 was a very different kind of an entity from what it became during her time. She, of course, broke that party quite consciously in 1969. But what she found much more difficult through the 1970s was the ability to reorganise the party in ways that could actually strengthen its machinery. So the move towards relying on her son, first, the younger one, Sanjay Gandhi and subsequently Rajiv Gandhi, comes out as a result of her inability really to institutionalise the party. Manoj CG: Do you think the Congress needs to break from Mrs Gandhi's legacy going forward? There is very little that we see by way of an alternative leadership. And even if we do, like Sharad Pawar or Mamata Banerjee, they walk out. No ambitious politician has a significant pathway to the party's top leadership, given the kind of a family holding structure that this party has come to acquire. It started under Mrs Gandhi and has now just gone on for so long that it is very difficult, even for Congressmen themselves, to conceive of an alternative. That will require a break with this model, which, I think, is both cognitively and practically quite difficult for most people in this party to conceive of and execute. On leader over party | Mrs Gandhi had an ability to make charismatic, Caesarist appeals directly to the electorate. So the function and role of the party system itself underwent a very significant change in her time What should be the legacy of Indira Gandhi that the Congress party should carry? What was both a source of her strength and weaknesses was that she was a very bold and tenacious leader. Splitting the Congress party, a party of the nationalist movement, in 1969 was a dramatic move. She did it again post-Emergency though the party was already truncated at that time. But during the 1971 Bangladesh war, she was initially hesitant, tentative, she assessed. But when she felt the time was ripe for a decisive move, she was willing to make it and even break taboos. For instance, the peace and friendship treaty with the then Soviet Union in August 1971 was a decisive move against non-alignment, a key aspect of the party's foreign policy orientation. If the Congress party could recover a fraction of her chutzpah and the willingness to gamble and try new things that she demonstrated, perhaps it would have been stronger. But for that, fundamental structural issues have to be addressed. Manoj CG: Was the Emergency a natural culmination of her authoritarian streak? We tend to focus on why Indira Gandhi did the Emergency. But an equally important question is, how was it possible for an Emergency to be declared? After all, you have a political system. It has all kinds of checks and balances supposedly. There are various institutions in play, there are various political forces at hand. Despite all of this, how was it possible for an authoritarian rule to be imposed? The parliamentary party has always a certain kind of a check on the executive. But Mrs Gandhi, by her willingness to break the party and then subsequently those spectacular electoral victories that she won, practically became the entire party. It was beholden to her rather than she in any way being controlled by it. The second thing was the strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis Parliament and then the judiciary. The supersession of judges in 1973 was a very important moment. So the institutional balance of power was already secreted to the executive by June 12, 1975. After the Allahabad High Court ruling of June 12, 1975, (which found Mrs Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices and barred her from holding elected office for six years) Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the Prime Minister should step down in response to a popular demand, even though the Supreme Court said that she had a conditional stay, that she could stay on in power. Indira Gandhi paid them in the same coin. By that time, all the institutional rules of the game were considerably weakened. Without that, it is actually difficult to imagine how the Emergency could have been imposed. Vikas Pathak: Did Indira Gandhi bring in a new normal where the leader was seen as strong enough to deliver what institutions, which are a maze of procedures, could not? Has that stuck to Indian democracy? That's a very accurate assessment. Soon after the imposition of the Emergency, she announced a 20-point programme for various kinds of economic development and social policies. While some things done during the Emergency, for instance, have not been attempted subsequently, the underlying template that you need a strong leader to deliver specific things for specific segments of Indian society remains. Vikas Pathak: Why did she decide to revoke the Emergency? From June 1976 onwards, various assessments were being prepared for the Prime Minister on the progress of the Emergency. Initially, there was a sense that the government was decisive about moving against labour unions. There was a move towards redistribution of land for Dalits and other groups. When she realised the diminishing returns of continuing with this regime, the unfavourable aspects of population control policies and sterilisation, and that it would be better to move towards elections, she withdrew. To Indira Gandhi, the Emergency was only an interlude. On Congress | If the Congress party could recover a fraction of her chutzpah and the kind of willingness to gamble and try new things that she demonstrated, perhaps it would have been stronger Ritika Chopra: What convinced you that the Emergency story was worth retelling? What archival discoveries surprised you? The reason I wanted to write this book was because of the new archival material that I came across while researching for another book on the creation of Bangladesh. I came across private papers of Mrs Gandhi's principal secretary PN Haksar and other people close to her. The Janata Party's own papers, which are available in Teen Murti, allowed me to look at her from her opponents' lens. So I wanted to situate her within the broader historical context of her times and how those contexts were changing quite dramatically. The period between the late 60s and the mid-80s was a period of turbulence across the world. If you look at the 1970s, democratic governments everywhere were on the rope. India is only an extreme example of what happened. Part of the reason for that was the global economic and energy crisis of that period. So I wanted this broad picture within which to situate her actions. Harish Damodaran: What was the difference between Indira Gandhi of the 60s (rupee devaluation), the 70s (bank nationalisation and welfare schemes) and the 80s (when she secured a $5.8 billion IMF loan despite US opposition)? The rupee devaluation attracted strong political opposition, including from her own party. Bank nationalisation is perhaps the single most important economic decision taken in independent India. One of the things we learnt from documents now available in the Prime Minister's Secretariat is that it's only after the banks were nationalised that she actually started asking people what to do with the machinery. A new fiscal monitoring machine was created. Similarly, we tend to think of the 1970s as this high period of the socialist face of Indira Gandhi's economic policymaking. I feel, however, that the socialist face was actually already at an end by 1974 or thereabouts just as global inflation and its effects were kicking in. Through the Emergency, what you see is a slow attempt at taking away various kinds of controls. What scholars talk about as a pro-business kind of a tilt in the 1980s is already in evidence from the mid-1970s. She took an IMF loan in 1980 but she also took one in 1974, which is why I think 1974 is the breaking point. If you look at the conditions of the 1974 IMF loan, there is a very strong anti-inflation package, including wage freezes. In fact, the 1980 loan offer is built on that model and came with a homegrown conditionality. This suggested that instead of the World Bank and financial institutions imposing conditions on India, we ourselves would roll out measures to address their concerns. Aakash Joshi: Did Mrs Gandhi's leadership destroy the Congress' institutional mechanism and internal democracy? Much of the illiberal tendencies in subsequent governments, be it on federalism, preventive detention or role of governors, are traced back to Mrs Gandhi. What's your assessment? Where Indira Gandhi failed entirely was that having broken the party, she could never find other means of reconstituting it. She tried various things. The Youth Congress was from time to time trumped up as this great solution to the problem of institutionalisation. Again, to give credit to the Youth Congress and even perhaps to Sanjay Gandhi, they did bring in a new set of leaders. Nevertheless, that was not an answer for having new institutional structures. I do not believe the Congress of the old variant could have continued on course either. Something would have changed irrespective of whether she came on or somebody else did. Also illiberal tendencies did not begin with Mrs Gandhi. Preventive detention has been a feature of statute books for pretty much the time that the Indian Constitution has existed. The Constitution itself actually provides for preventive detention, funnily enough, in those parts which talk about fundamental rights. But what changed under her was the kind of preventive detention laws that she brought about, like the Internal Security Act of 1975. The Janata government repealed the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) but brought in a new preventive detention law. On what enabled Emergency to happen | there is a much more collective responsibility that the entire Indian political elite of the time had. without that kind of collective abdication of the rules of the game, you would not have had a system which collapsed this way Similarly with the governors, I think no other Prime Minister or no government has used Article 356 (which mandates President's Rule) as much as Indira Gandhi did. That led to, especially in her final term, the whole Centre versus State kind of dynamic. Yes, she aggravated and accentuated many of the worst features of our legal political system but everything cannot be assumed to have originated from her. Rinku Ghosh: The Emergency has set a template that non-Congress parties now use to justify their actions in a tussle of whataboutery. What does this portend for future governments? What kind of lessons should we learn from this particular episode in our history? I say this fully conscious of the fact that history itself does not offer any lessons. It's only historians like me who tell what the lessons of history are, which is why we constantly disagree with each other. Rather we must ask , what was it that enabled the Emergency to happen? And when we ask ourselves that question, we understand that there is a much more collective responsibility that the entire Indian political elite of the time had for this disastrous turn that Indian politics took in 1975. Because without that kind of collective abdication of the rules of the game, in some ways, you would not have had a system which collapsed this way. If we believe that the rules of the game are of no consequence, then we are setting ourselves up for graver and more serious disasters. Deeptiman Tiwary: What actually hit Mrs Gandhi's popularity really badly, making her lose from her pocketborough in the elections that followed the Emergency, was forced sterilisation. Do you think the move that allowed the government to actually enter people's homes was a body blow? I don't think so. If you had a normal situation where fundamental rights were enforceable by courts, you could be pretty sure that people would immediately go to the courts and would have at least got a stay on some of what the government was trying to do. But the coercive drive was possible precisely because of the broader framework of authoritarianism within which the Emergency was happening. So I think that the coercive aspects of the sterilisation drive are only one dimension of the broader authoritarian turn that Indian politics had taken during this particular period.
Time of India
04-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Timely disposal of people's complaints my top priority: Gaya's new DM
Gaya: Aimed at ensuring effective and timely resolution of public grievances, Gaya district magistrate, Shashank Shubhankar, on Wednesday said that a portal was being developed for monitoring complaints of people coming at the Janata durbar. "I have instructed officials concerned to upload all the complaints on a portal. Regular monitoring regarding disposal of the complaints will be done through the portal. In case of inaction, responsibility will be fixed on the official concerned," the DM said in his first interaction with the mediapersons after he assumed charge on Tuesday. The DM said, "Apart from implementation of ongoing or the upcoming development projects, redressal of public grievances will be on his top priority. Now, people having any complaint can come to meet me in the office on any working day of the week from 11am onwards." He further said, "Flying squads will be constituted to conduct surprise inspections to monitor regular and timely attendance of officials and employees at district, block, circle and panchayat level govt offices. Instructions have also been given to officials of different departments like public health and engineering, public works, Pul Nirman Nigam and others to meet people at least twice a week and ensure redressal of their complaints. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gentle Japanese hair growth method for men and women's scalp Hair's Rich Learn More Undo " The DM also instructed sadar SDO and the traffic DSP to chalk out a plan to ease traffic congestion. In view of Nirjala Ekadashi on Friday, the DM and the SSP Anand Kumar conducted inspection of Deo ghat near Vishnupad temple on Wednesday. He instructed to ensure all arrangements for the expected large gathering of devotees to offer puja at the Vishnupad temple early in the morning on Friday. The arrangements include making available pure and cold drinking water, cleanliness in toilets at Deo ghat, light at all dark spots around the temple area, and deployment of medical team with availability of ambulance for the devotees.
