Modi govt rules out special status for Bihar; Lalu Yadav's party takes a swipe

News Network
July 22, 2024

nitishmodi.jpg

New Delhi: The Centre has ruled out any plan to give a special category status to Bihar, a core demand by its key ally, the Janata Dal (United), prompting the Rashtriya Janata Dal to take a swipe at JDU leader and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.  

Ramprit Mandal, JDU MP from Bihar's Jhanjharpur, had asked the Finance Ministry if the government has a plan to provide special status to Bihar and other most backward states to promote economic growth and industrialisation.

In a written response, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said "case for Special Category Status for Bihar is not made out".

"The Special Category Status for plan assistance was granted in the past by the National Development Council (NDC) to some States that were characterized by a number of features necessitating special consideration. These features included (i) hilly and difficult terrain, (ii) low population density and/or sizeable share of tribal population, (iii) strategic location along borders with neighbouring countries, (iv) economic and infrastructural backwardness and (v) non-viable nature of State finances," the reply stated. "Earlier, the request of Bihar for Special Category Status was considered by an Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) which submitted its Report on 30th March, 2012. The IMG came to the finding that based on existing NDC criteria, the case for Special Category Status for Bihar is not made out," it added.

A special status ensures more central support to a backward state to expedite its growth. While the Constitution does not provide for a special status for any state, it was introduced on the recommendations of the Fifth Finance Commission in 1969. Among the states that have received a special status so far are Jammu and Kashmir (now a Union Territory), Noreastern states and hill states such as Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

A state with a special category status gets more funding support from the Central in the Union government's schemes and several concessions in taxes.

A special status for Bihar has been a longstanding demand of the JDU. With the BJP falling short of a majority in this election and tying up with JDU, TDP and other parties to cobble up the magic figure, the Nitish Kumar-led party was expected to push hard for its core demand. The JDU also raised this demand at an all-party meeting before the budget session.

JDU MP Sanjay Kumar Jha said the demand for a special state status for Bihar has been a priority for the JDU. "Bihar should get the status of a special state, this has been the demand of our party since the beginning. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has held big rallies for this demand. If the government feels that there is a problem in doing this, then we have demanded a special package for Bihar," he said, according to a PTI report.

With the Centre making it clear that it has no plan to grant a special status, Bihar's main Opposition RJD has hit out at the JDU, which is ruling the state in alliance with BJP. "Nitish Kumar and JDU leaders must enjoy the fruits of power at the Centre and continue their drama politics on special status," the RJD said in a post on X.

A source in the government said that the Special Category Status issue was first addressed in the National Development Council meeting in 1969. "During this meeting, the D R Gadgil Committee introduced a formula to allocate Central Assistance for state plans in India. Prior to this, there was no specific formula for fund distribution to States, and grants were given on a scheme basis. The Gadgil Formula, approved by the NDC, prioritized special category States such as Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, and Nagaland, ensuring their needs were addressed first from the pool of Central assistance."

The Special Category status concept was introduced by the 5th Finance Commission in 1969 recognising historical disadvantages of certain regions, the source said.

"Until the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the 11 States with Special Category Status benefited from various advantages and incentives. However, following the dissolution of the Planning Commission and the formation of the NITI Aayog in 2014, the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission were implemented, leading to the discontinuation of Gadgil Formula-based grants. Instead, the devolution from the divisible pool to all States was increased from 32% to 42%," the source added.

Currently, no additional States are being granted Special Category Status, as the Constitution does not provide for such categorisation, said the source in the government.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

birensingh.jpg

The Manipur Kuki MLAs have released a statement calling out Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's 'lies' in the Supreme Court. In a joint statement, the MLAs, including those from the Bharatiya Janata Party, said they had not had any meeting with the Chief Minister since May 3, 2023, nor did they intend to meet him in the future as “he was the mastermind behind the violence”.

As per the MLAs, the SG lied about state CM N Biren Singh speaking to Kuki MLAs to control the situation there, in order to halt a Supreme Court probe into the leaked tapes which allege that Singh has been complicit in the violence that broke out between Kukis and Meitis there.

"We...clarify that we have never had any meeting with Chief Minister, Shri N. Biren Singh since May 3, 2023, nor have any intention to meet him in future as he is the mastermind behind the violence and ethnic cleansing of our people from the Imphal valley, which is continuing till today, the latest being the brutal killing and burning of Mrs Zosangkim Hmar on November 7, 2024," the letter read, while condemning the recent 'barbaric' killing of the woman there, and noting the SG's assertion is 'tantamount' to misleading the top court.

“We, the undersigned ten MLAs, have come to know that during the Supreme Court hearing held on November 8, 2024, the Solicitor General of India submitted that ‘CM is meeting all Kuki MLAs and trying to bring the situation down to get peace’. In this connection, we hereby categorically state that this submission is a blatant lie and tantamount to misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition by a Kuki organisation, asked that it submit audio tapes to substantiate its claim that the Chief Minister was instrumental in inciting and organising violence in the northeastern State.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta orally informed the court that the Chief Minister was meeting all the Kuki-Zo MLAs and that peace in the State had come at a huge cost.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

Udupi, Nov 11: A traveller reportedly lost ₹4.1 lakh after attempting to book a cab online in Udupi. 

At around 1:30 PM on November 7, the man from West Bengal searched for car rentals on Google and selected a website named "Shakti Car Rentals." Shortly after, he was contacted by someone claiming to be "Rohit Sharma," who directed him to pay a registration fee of ₹150 on the site.

After unsuccessful payment attempts via both his Canara Bank debit card and SBI credit card (without receiving an OTP), "Rohit Sharma" instructed him to pay the driver directly. But at 1:47 PM, he received messages showing deductions of ₹3.3 lakh from his SBI credit card and ₹80,056 from his Canara Bank debit card, totaling ₹4.1 lakh.

The complainant alleges fraud through a deceptive link disguised as a booking token fee. A case has been registered at Udupi Town Police Station.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.