Due to limitation of details, national data on the causes of suicide in farming sector was untenable & not published separately, Union Minister of State for Home Reddy said.
Centre criticised for not taking states into confidence, for the plight of migrant workers and for delaying Covid measures ‘to topple Madhya Pradesh government’.
There was ruckus in Rajya Sabha over the passage of the farmer bills as at least 13 opposition parties wanted Modi govt to refer the bills to a select committee for scrutiny.
The committees have been tasked to inspect, supervise and guide govt, other Covid hospitals, Minister of State for Health Ashwini Choubey told the Rajya Sabha Sunday.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman says saving companies impacted by the pandemic was more important than facilitating recovery by creditors under the law.
The last five days saw Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu frequently ticking off MPs for speaking with their mask pushed to the chin.
The proposed amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code aims to reduce timelines and provide for a mechanism that involves minimal interaction with the court. It fails on both counts.
Open to public feedback until 26 November, the revised guidelines, among other changes, give CA firms more flexibility to advertise & promote their services.
Bihar is blessed with a land more fertile for revolutions than any in India. Why has it fallen so far behind then? Constant obsession with politics is at the root of its destruction.
What is the meaning of ” The government must also be less inflexible and build consensus by accommodating dissenting voices.”
1. Was the opposition prevented from speaking in RS? Were they shouted down?
2. If we are to be a functioning democracy the majority must rule after hearing everyone.
3. Accommodating dissenting voice can only mean listening to opposition, if they can convince enough numbers their views will be become the law. But not by climbing on the seats, rushing to the Chair, yanking Mikes and tearing rule book in the face of the chair.
4. It is shame that all this was done by the elders some of them even IITians, not just showman, but peoples who have held constitutional positions.
5. Then the tamasha of sitting on a DHARNA.
6.How and what dissenting voices are expected to be accommodated.
7. When the numbers are against it is called BRUTE MAJORITY.
Just three rules:
1. All members in LS and RS while in the house should be at their seat – any violation attracts immediate suspension and ouster.
2. All members in LS and RS while in the house should speak from their seats – sitting / standing – anybody speaking out of turn will attract immediate suspension and ouster.
3. At any time in LS / RS, only one member can speak – onus on the party. Any violation , the party will forfeit the right to speak on the ongoing business
Do the above three simple rules if introduced and implemented violate constitutional rights? Can we have a National debate on this?
What is the meaning of ” The government must also be less inflexible and build consensus by accommodating dissenting voices.”
1. Was the opposition prevented from speaking in RS? Were they shouted down?
2. If we are to be a functioning democracy the majority must rule after hearing everyone.
3. Accommodating dissenting voice can only mean listening to opposition, if they can convince enough numbers their views will be become the law. But not by climbing on the seats, rushing to the Chair, yanking Mikes and tearing rule book in the face of the chair.
4. It is shame that all this was done by the elders some of them even IITians, not just showman, but peoples who have held constitutional positions.
5. Then the tamasha of sitting on a DHARNA.
6.How and what dissenting voices are expected to be accommodated.
7. When the numbers are against it is called BRUTE MAJORITY.
Just three rules:
1. All members in LS and RS while in the house should be at their seat – any violation attracts immediate suspension and ouster.
2. All members in LS and RS while in the house should speak from their seats – sitting / standing – anybody speaking out of turn will attract immediate suspension and ouster.
3. At any time in LS / RS, only one member can speak – onus on the party. Any violation , the party will forfeit the right to speak on the ongoing business
Do the above three simple rules if introduced and implemented violate constitutional rights? Can we have a National debate on this?