New Delhi, Sep 21,2023: The Rajya Sabha on Thursday unanimously passed the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill, 2023 providing reservation of one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
The Lok Sabha had on Wednesday passed the landmark bill after extensive discussion during the ongoing special session of the Parliament.
Rajya Sabha members cutting across party lines supported the bill which is also called Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam. As many as 72 members in the Upper House participated in the marathon discussion on the key bill.
The discussion followed by voting on the bill stretched past 11:30 PM. 214 members voted in favour while there was no vote against it.
The amendments moved by some of the opposition members were negated by the House.
Replying to the debate, Minister of Law and Justice (Independent Charge) Arjun Ram Meghwal said no one should have any doubt about implementation of the women’s reservation bill. He noted that Constitutional provision requires Census and delimitation process to be completed before the bill is implemented.
As the Minister was replying to the bill, Prime Minister Narendra Modi walked into the Rajya Sabha amid chants of ‘Modi, Modi’ by his party members.
While extending their ‘whole-hearted and unconditional’ support to the bill, members from opposition parties pitched for quota within quota for other backward classes (OBCs). They also urged the government to implement the bill immediately.
Clause 5 of the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill, 2023 states that reservation of seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies will be implemented after delimitation takes place and Census provides figures for the same.
Participating in the discussion on the bill, Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said his party has extended unconditional support to the bill. But he remarked that the government should make sure that it does not turn into a ‘jumla’ (hollow promise).
“Tell us the date when you are going to implement the women’s reservation bill. Otherwise it will also be a jumla,” he quipped.
Kharge also demanded quota within quota for OBCs.
“We want to know from the government whether quota within quota would be provided to OBC women,” the LoP said.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill, 2023 notes that the legislation will enable greater participation of women as public representative in policy making.
“In order to enable greater participation of women as public representative in policy making at State and national level, it is decided to introduce a fresh legislation for Constitutional amendment to provide for, as nearly as may be, one-third of total seats in the House of the People (Lok Sabha), the legislative assembly of every state and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to be reserved for women,” it says.
During the discussion, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that the bill has been very thoughtfully crafted considering that the country is at a very critical stage of the development process.
She also said that unlike SCs and STs, there was no mention of electoral reservation in the Constitution for OBCs.
Many opposition members questioned the timing of the bill and said that there should not have been any condition or caveat attached to the document.
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Vandana Chavan said the government can implement the bill in the 2024 election itself and there was no reason to delay it.
Reservation of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies has been a long-pending demand. In the past, several attempts were made to push the legislation but failed. The last such attempt was made during the UPA-II government in 2010 when Rajya Sabha passed the Women’s reservation bill but it could not be passed in the Lok Sabha.
After passing the bill, Rajya Sabha was adjourned sine die.
Washington, Sep 19,2023: The US national debt exceeded $33 trillion for the first time in the country’s history, according to US Treasury Department data.
The US national debt stands at approximately $33.04 trillion, the Treasury Department said.
The milestone comes as Congress works to fund the government before the end of the month, lest they risk a government shutdown.
A number of US House Republicans have expressed opposition to a short-term funding bill proposed by the chamber leadership, citing concerns about excessive government spending.
On Monday, US Congressman Dan Bishop said the United States has added $1 trillion to the existing national debt since June to exceed $33 billion, adding that the per family share is $260,000.
Bishop said the Congress’ answer to the record level of debt is to pass another continuing resolution to continue to fund the government. The congressman referred to Congress and the government as “the swamp” – a popular reference for the bureaucracy in Washington.
Earlier on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that she is comfortable with the economic path of the United States despite the rising inflation and interest rates.
Chennai, Sep 14,2023: Asserting that there was no scope for talks with Karnataka on the Cauvery river water dispute after it refused to release water as per the orders of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC), Tamil Nadu Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan said Supreme Court is the last resort for us.
Assuring the farmers of the Cauvery delta districts that the ruling DMK would make all efforts to ensure that they were not affected in any way after Karnataka’s refusal to release 5,000 cubic feet per second water to Tamil Nadu per day as per the directions of CWRC, Mr Duraimurgan said the case comes up before the Supreme Court on September 21. “We have to observe the formal response of the Karnataka government to the CWRC’s direction”, he told reporters here last night, reacting to Karnataka’s decision not to release water to the State taken at an all party meeting on Wednesday.
“The last resort for us is the Supreme Court where the matter will come up for hearing on September 21. By that time we will know the stand to be taken by Karnataka”, he said, while assuring that the Tamil Nadu government will definite secure relief for the farmers.
Despite Karnataka has all along been opposing every development (in favour of Tamil Nadu) in the dispute, the Minister said, “We have been safeguarding our rights.”
To a query on whether the Tamil Nadu Government will convene an all party meeting as desired some farmers associations in the wake of the one convened by the neighbouring state yesterday, Mr Duraimurugan it could be considered after the outcome of the hearing of the case in the Apex Court on Thursday next.
On whether any scope of talks with Karnataka to resolve the row, the Minister shot back saying Tamil Nadu went in for adjudication only because talks did not yielded any fruitful results.
He said as on September 12, the storage of four Karnataka reservoirs in the Cauvery basin is around 63.801 tmc ft. As the Met department has forecast rains in September for Karnataka, 10 tmc ft would become available.
Besides, in the month of October, the four reservoirs would receive at least 30 tmc ft of water, he added.
“The CWRC has ordered only 5,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) for 15 days (from September 13) which will be equivalent to 6.48 tmc ft. It is lower than the quantum suggested under the distress-sharing formula,”
Mr. Duraimurugan said.
New Delhi, Sep 12,2023: Supreme Court, in its order on Tuesday, referred to at least a five-judge Constitution bench in the batch of petitions challenging the sedition law 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, referred the batch of pleas to at least a five-judge larger bench for a detailed hearing and to effectively deal with the constitutional validity of 124-A of the sedition law.
The Apex Court also took into record the submissions and arguments by the AG and SG that, at this stage, it was appropriate to defer reference to the five-judge bench having regard to the fact that parliament is in the process of reenacting the law. The court, however, in its order, said that we are not inclined to defer the consideration.
The Atrorney General (AG) of India, R Venkataramani, the top law officer representing the Union of India, argued that the new law is there and has been sent to a parliamentary standing committee. “The parliamentary standing committee is looking into it,” Venkataramani said.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, for one of the petitioners, opposed it and told the Top Indian Court that the new law is much worse and the prosecutions will go on.
He said in 1973, this section 124-A was made a cognisable offence. Prior to that, it wasn’t cognisable. Therefore, they started arresting people invoking this section.
Sibal, while narrating Section 124-A, said , “disaffection towards the government”. As far as 19(1)(a) [Right to freedom of speech and expression], is concerned, it refers to “state”, not government.
“What is fundamentally wrong is disaffection towards the government is not disaffection towards the state; the state is not the government, and the government is not the state,” Sibal said.
We have to decide on this law as it stands today. We can’t wait for the parliament to decide on this, Sibal said.
To this, the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that, at the highest level, it was being seriously considered. And it is done now. But the government stated that let all parties be referred to in this context; let us wait for the government. It is at the highest level of being reconsidered; it has now been reconsidered.
In May last year, the court, in an interim order, suspended the use of Section 124-A, staying pending criminal trials and court proceedings under Section 124A across the country.
The Editors Guild of India (EGI), Major General (Retd) S.G. Vombatkere, former Union minister Arun Shourie, and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), along with others, have filed a batch of petitions against the penal provision in the Supreme Court.
The petitions contended that the law causes a “chilling effect” on free speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.