Kasaragod: First time voter comes from Mumbai, finds her name missing

New Delhi, Feb 7: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde also sought Centre's response on the plea filed by Assam Social Justice Forum.

The petition sought appropriate directions for taking effective steps for the implementation of Assam Accord, 1985 in letter and spirit and for conservation and preservation of the of a distinct culture, heritage and traditions of the indigenous people of Assam.

The Assam Accord, 1985, had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion.

The Bench also sought Centre's response on another fresh batch of pleas challenging CAA and tagged them along with other petitions pending in the matter.

One of the petitions, filed by the Association of Advocates from Maharashtra among others, sought to declare the Citizenship Amendment Act as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal and consequently set aside the impugned act as ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, over a hundred petitions have been filed in the apex court, for and against the amended citizenship law, which is facing opposition and protests across the country.

CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.

Hassan, Feb 2: Former prime minister and JD(S) supremo H D Deve Gowda has said that the controversy over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act should be resolved peacefully through discussion.

Speaking to reporters in Halebeed on Saturday, Gowda said that the Act affects only Muslims but would also prove troublesome for the Hindus. “Opening fire on anti-CAA protesters is the not solution to the issue,” he said.

Deve Gowda said that during his tenure as prime minister a number of problems concerning Muslims were addressed. “But, in the run up to election, Rahul Gandhi described us ‘B’ team of BJP. This led to vote swing,” he added. When his comment was sought on the budget, the former prime minister said that he had not yet read the budget document.

Bengaluru, Jan 28: Brace for hefty traffic penalties as the state government is all set to reverse a notification on revised fines which came into effect last September following pushback from road users and opposition parties.

The Karnataka government will implement traffic penalties as stipulated in the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, in a phased manner following a diktat from the Centre. The government did not specify the timeline for it.

“At a recent meeting of transport ministers from various states, the Union government explained why it wanted to implement these huge fines. We found it convincing and will implement it in its original form,” said transport minister Laxman Savadi on Monday.

Savadi said India’s image globally has taken a beating due to the high number of road deaths and the Centre wants to change it at any cost. However, he said the entire set of hefty fines would not be reintroduced all at once.

BJP govt revised rates in Sept

The BJP government last September had revised fines on compoundable offences and those which are fined on the spot by traffic cops by 50%- 80%, barring drunken driving and racing.

As per the revised rates, helmetless riding attracted a penalty of Rs 500 against Rs 1,000 notified by the Centre. Driving without a licence attracted a fine of Rs 1,000 for

two- and three-wheelers and Rs 2,000 for light motor vehicles as against the earlier Rs 5,000 for all types of vehicles.

The central government recently told states and Union Territories they should enforce fines as per the amended Act and they cannot be rolled back. The road transport and highways ministry said fines cannot be reduced below the minimum amount fixed by law, unless the President gives his assent.