New Delhi, Jun 13: Based on the prevailing situation in the border state as brought out in the report of Jammu and Kashmir Governor, the Union Cabinet has approved the extension of President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir for a further period of six months with effect from July 3, under article 356(4) of the Constitution.
A resolution seeking approval of Parliament for the same will be moved in both the houses of Parliament during the forthcoming session, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Jawrekar said on Wednesday while briefing the media.
The present term of President’s Rule is expiring on July 2, and the Governor has recommended that the President Rule in the State may be extended for a further period of six months with effect from July 3, 2019.
The Governor of Jammu and Kashmir Satyapal Malik issued a proclamation on June 20,2018 under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir with the concurrence of the President of India, thereby assuming to himself the functions of the Government and Legislature of the State and making some incidental and consequential provisions. The State Assembly, initially kept in suspended animation was dissolved by the Governor on November 21,2018.
The proclamation issued by the Governor on June 20,2018 ceased on December 19 last year after six months. Under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, there is no provision for further continuation of such Proclamation after six months.
Therefore, on the recommendation of Governor and having regard to the prevailing situation in the State, the President issued a proclamation promulgating President’s Rule in the State under article 356 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, a Resolution approving the subject Proclamation by President was passed in the Lok Sabha on December28, 2018 and in the Rajya Sabha on January 3 this year.
NEW DELHI : The Indian government on Tuesday defended its methodology of calculating the country’s economic growth, countering the argument of a former top economic advisor who said that Asia’s third-largest economy might be overestimating its growth rate.
India objectively measures the contribution of various sectors in the economy and the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) estimates are based on accepted procedures and methodologies, the ministry of statistics said in a statement.
In 2015, New Delhi changed both the way the government calculates GDP and the base year.
The country started measuring GDP by market prices instead of factor costs, to take into account gross value addition in goods and services as well as indirect taxes. And the base year was shifted to 2011/12 from 2004/05 earlier.
In a column published in a newspaper on Monday, Arvind Subramanian, former chief economic adviser, said his research indicated that the change in the methodology led to GDP growth being overstated by about 2.5 percentage points per year between 2011/12 and 2016/17.
Official estimates place average annual growth for this period at about 7%. Actual growth may have been about 4.5%, Subramanian said.
“My new research suggests that post-global financial crisis, the heady narrative of a guns-blazing India — that statisticians led us to believe — may have to cede to a more realistic one of an economy growing solidly but not spectacularly,” Subramanian said in the column.
There have been questions for many years about whether Indian government statistics were telling the full story but two recent controversies over revisions and delays of crucial numbers have taken those concerns to new heights.
The government itself has admitted there are deficiencies in its data collection.
A study conducted by a division of the statistics ministry in the 12 months ending June 2017 found that as much as 36 percent of the companies in the database used in India’s GDP calculations could not be traced or were wrongly classified.
But the government said there was no impact on GDP estimates as due care was taken to adjust corporate filings at the aggregate level.
Jammu, Jun 11: Sessions Judge Pathankote Dr Tejwinder Singh on Monday awarded lifer to three accused persons including the kingpin Sanjhi Ram and also convicted three others with five year rigorous imprisonment while acquitted one in a much publicised Kathua gangrape case.
The Court awarded lifer to Deepak Khajuria, Parvesh Kumar alias Mannu and Sanji Ram under sections 302/376-D/120-B, 328/ 363/201/343 r/w section 34 RPC and also convicted Sub-Inspector Anand Dutta, Tilak Raj and Surinder Kumar under sections 201 RPC r/section 34 and 120-B RPC, Court acquitted Vishal Jangotra, son of Sanjhi Ram.
Court after hearing both the sides in length convicted Deepak Khajuria, Parvesh Kumar, Sanji Ram and awarded imprisonment for life and fine Rs 50,000 u/s 120-B RPC, imprisonment for life and fine Rs 100000 u/s 302 r/w section 34, u/s 376-D r/w 34 RPC rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years, u/s 376-D/511 rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine Rs 25000 u/s 328 RPC rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine Rs 50,000, u/s 363 imprisonment for a period 7 years and fine Rs 50,000, u/s 201 RI for a period 5 years and fine Rs 50,000 and u/s 343 RI for two years and fine Rs 20,000.
The Court awarded five years RI and fine Rs 50,000 to Sub-Inspector Anand Dutta, Tilak Raj and Surinder Kumar u/s 201 RPC r/section 34 and 120-B RPC.
Court further clarified that all the sentences shall run concurrently and it is further clarified that the period of detention already undergone by the convicts, during the pendency of investigation/trial of this case shall be set-off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded against all the convicts.
Court further held that in the present case, facts are many but truth is one that under a criminal conspiracy, an innocent eight years old minor girl has been kidnapped, wrongfully confined, drugged, raped and ultimately murdered.
The perpetrators of this crime have acted in such a manner as if there is a ‘law of the jungle’ prevalent in the society. It has to be adjudicated in the present trial to find out the persons who were ‘partners in the crime’ so committed against the minor girl child and accordingly a “poetic justice’ needs to be done to the perpetrators of the crime. It is well said that “Heaven or Hell are not geographically locations, our thoughts, actions and character creates the situation of heaven or hell for us”.
Court further observed that needless to say that commission of this devilish and monstrous crime has sent shocking waves across the society and the actual guilty needs to be brought under the sword of justice.