Latest news with #SC
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA, says wholly untenable
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has ordered immediate release of a law student in Madhya Pradesh from preventive detention after being booked under the National Security Act , saying it is "wholly untenable". SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA, says wholly untenable A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, which found fault with the July 11, 2024 detention order passed by District Magistrate of Betul in Madhya Pradesh said it will be passing a detailed reasoned order in the case. Petitioner Annu was booked by police following an altercation at a university campus in Betul, allegedly after he clashed with a professor. An FIR was lodged against him for offences of attempt to murder and other connected offences. While in jail, a detention order under provisions of the NSA was issued against him. This order was later confirmed and extended every three months since then. "After perusal of the first detention order dated July 11, 2024, we find that the appellant has been taken into preventive detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. However, we are of the view that the reasons for which he has been taken into preventive detention does not satisfy the requirement of Sub Section of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable," the Supreme Court bench said in its order passed on Friday. The bench said the preventive detention has also become untenable for other grounds as well, such as representation of the appellant being decided by the district collector himself, without forwarding it to the state government and also not taken into account the factum of appellant's detention in other criminal cases and as to why he was required to be taken into preventive detention, in spite of being detained in a regular criminal proceeding. "Thus, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant, who is presently lodged in the Central Jail at Bhopal, shall be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other criminal case. In view of the above, the criminal appeal is disposed of. Reasoned order will follow," the bench said. It noted that Annu alias Aniket, who was a law student was first taken into preventive detention by order dated July 11, 2024 and this detention order has been extended on four occasions and as per the last extension order, his preventive detention is up to July 12, 2025. The bench said that according to the material brought on record by the state government, the court finds that nine criminal antecedents, including the present criminal case, have been cited against the law student to justify the preventive detention under provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. However, his counsel has submitted that out of the previous eight cases, Annu has been acquitted in five cases and in one case, he has been convicted, but sentence is only imposition of fine. The court was informed that the remaining two cases are presently pending and the law student was on bail in those matters. The top court also noted that in the present criminal case registered against him last year, he was granted bail on January 28, 2025. "The scenario, which thus emerges, is that the appellant continues to remain in custody only by virtue of the order of preventive detention. It is averred that the appellant is lodged in Central Jail, Bhopal," the bench noted. On February 25, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Annu's father, observing that the petitioner had a long history of criminal cases and was a habitual offender whose presence posed a threat to public peace. The high court cited the preventive nature of NSA detention and upheld the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate as sufficient. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship: Supreme Court decision limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US Birthright citizenship: According to legal experts, the ramifications of Supreme Court's order curtailing power of district courts to issue nation-wide injunctions are onerous
Representative image (Picture credit: AP) In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AudioNova leder efter testpersoner i Aarhus til at teste det usynlige høreapparat Audionova Lær mere Undo Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Citizenship by birth curtailed even for legal immigrants; over 1 million Indians in green card queue impacted Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben Johnson , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
SC a 'last resort' for House prosecutors if Senate junks VP Sara impeachment —spox
The House of Representatives Prosecution Panel would resort going to the Supreme Court (SC) on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte should the Senate move to dismiss the case, according to their spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy. "Wala kaming ibang pupuntahan kasi ang SC lang ang final judge ng Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not,' Bucoy said at the Saturday News Forum. (We have nowhere else to go because the SC is the final judge of the Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not.) Bucoy made the remark after Duterte entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' In the 35-page answer ad cautelam (with caution) submitted by Duterte's camp to the Senate impeachment court on Monday, the Vice President argued that the fourth impeachment complaint must be dismissed for being illegal, saying that it violated the one-year bar rule under the 1987 Constitution. The House of Representatives prosecution panel, in response, asked the Senate impeachment court to reject Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges requires no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction. Should the Senate impeachment court rule in favor of the Vice President's appeal, Bucoy said the House prosecution would file before the Supreme Court a 'petition for certiorari with mandamus, questioning the exercise of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.' ''Yun lang ang puwede namin i-akyat eh, 'yung grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the [Supreme] Court to compel the [Senate] court to try it,' he said. (That's all we can do. The grave abuse of discretion amounts to a lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the Supreme Court to compel the Senate court to proceed with the trial.) 'The only thing the SC can do is either reverse or modify 'yung kanilang decision,' he added. (The SC can either reverse or modify the decision.) Motion Senate President Francis Escudero on Wednesday said that the Senate impeachment court may vote on the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte if a senator-judge makes such a submission. 'Wala namang bawal na motion... Asan ba 'yung provision sa Saligang Batas o sa Rules on Impeachment na bawal ang ganito o ganyang klaseng motion? Hindi mo namang pwedeng pigilan,' Escudero said in a press conference. (There is no prohibited motion. Where is the law, constitutional provision, or Rules of Impeachment that a certain motion is prohibited? You cannot stop someone from making a motion.) Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa had moved in the plenary for the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment, but his motion was eventually amended so that the complaint be returned to the House of Representatives pending a couple of certifications. 'Constitutional crisis' Bucoy, meanwhile, warned that it would become a 'constitutional crisis' if the Senate refuses to follow what the Supreme Court's decision would be. 'There will be a constitutional crisis kung nag utos ang SC at ayaw sumunod then we have a crisis, pero I doubt kung hindi sila susunod," he said. This, as Bucoy stressed the importance of proceeding with the trial. 'Para sa amin, mahalaga na magkaroon ng paglilitis, kahit na i-acquit niyo yan, basta naipakita namin sa bayan ang mga ebidensya namin sa lahat ng krimen na ginawa niya,' he said. (For us, it is important to have a trial, even if you acquit her, as long as we have shown the people our evidence for all the crimes she committed.) 'Bayan na ang maghuhusga sa inyo. Pero babalikan ko ulit, nagtitiwala pa rin kami sa proseso dahil ito haka-haka pa rin. Malalaman natin sa susunod na mga araw kung tama ang ating pag agam-agam,' he added. (Let the people be the judge. Again, we still trust the process because this is still speculation. We will know in the coming days if our doubts are correct.) Duterte is accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and his Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte, among others. The Vice President has denied the allegations. Bucoy also said that the House prosecution team has not yet discussed whether it will file a motion for inhibition against senator-judges who have expressed biases in the case. 'I think there's growing opinion… it's gaining ground na 'wag na lang.' Malilihis na naman eh. Pangalawa, it will only compound our numbers issues,' he said. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Hans India
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Minister promises house soon to every eligible person
Visakhapatnam: A detailed investigation into irregularities in the construction of houses and development of layouts during the YSRCP rule will be launched and strict action would be taken against those responsible, said housing minister Kolusu Parthasarathy. Visiting housing layouts in Anandapuram and Sabbavaram mandals here on Friday, he said that houses with all amenities will be built for the eligible poor in the state. He said that pending works in the colonies would be completed and they would be made ready for occupancy at the earliest. The minister emphasised that due to lack of proper planning during the previous government's tenure, standard of the houses went for a toss. Further, Parthasarathy said that the BC, SC and ST communities are facing financial difficulties and this was discussed in the meeting held with the Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu recently. He informed that Rs 50,000 will be sanctioned additionally to BC beneficiaries and SCs, and Rs.1 lakh to STs living in the tribal areas. The housing minister assured that steps would be taken to bring shopping complexes near the colonies and that activities will be designed to increase the economic power of the poor. He recalled that the previous government could not utilise the Jal Jeevan Mission and AMRUT schemes, and that the Centre had extended the deadline for those schemes due to the initiative of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan. The minister assured that by utilising the schemes, drinking water facility will be provided to every NTR Colony very soon and electricity would also be provided within two to three months. Further, the minister said that the housing department will temporarily take the support from GVMC and VMRDA to provide electricity and drinking water facilities in the colonies. Speaking on the occasion, Bheemunipatnam MLA Ganta Srinivasa Rao and Pendurthi MLA Panchakarla Ramesh Babu appealed to the minister to provide infrastructure in swift manner, grant additional financial assistance and cooperate in inaugurating the houses soon. MLC Vepada Chiranjeevi Rao, former MLC Duvvarapu Rama Rao, Housing Corporation chairman B Tatayya Babu, TDP district president Gandi Babji, housing PD Satthibabu, EE Srinivasa Rao and other public representatives were present.
