Bharat Biotech has fixed the price of its Covid-19 vaccine, Covaxin, at Rs 600 per dose for state governments and at Rs 1,200 per dose for private hospitals, the vaccine maker announced on Saturday.&nbsp;

In a statement, Bharat Biotech Chairman and Managing Director Krishna M Ella said the company is supplying the vaccine to the Central Government at Rs 150 per dosage.&nbsp;

"We would like to state that more than 50 per cent of our capacities have been reserved for Central Government supplies," Ella said.&nbsp;

Recovering cost is essential in the journey of innovation towards other vaccines, such as intranasal Covid-19, Chikungunya, Zika, Cholera and others, he added.&nbsp;

The company has tagged the vaccine between USD 15-20 for export markets.&nbsp;

Earlier this week, Serum Institute of India (SII) had announced a price of Rs 400 per dose for 'Covishield' for state governments and Rs 600 per dose for private hospitals.&nbsp;

The company also said for the next two months, it will address the issue of limited capacity by scaling up vaccine production.&nbsp;

"Going ahead, 50 per cent of our capacities will be served to the Government of India's vaccination programme, and the remaining 50 per cent of the capacity will be for the state governments and private hospitals," Serum Institute of India had said in a statement.&nbsp;

American vaccines in the private market cost more than Rs 1,500 per dose, while Russian and Chinese vaccines cost greater than Rs 750 per dose, it had noted.&nbsp;

Covishield comprises over 90 per cent of the 12.76 crore COVID-19 vaccines administered across the country so far, according to government data on Wednesday.&nbsp;

Of the 127,605,870 COVID-19 vaccination jabs administered till now, 11,60,65,107 are of Covishield, while 1,15,40,763 are Covaxin, according to the government's CO-WIN portal.&nbsp;

Earlier in the day, the government waived customs duty on the import of COVID vaccines as well as medical grade oxygen and related equipment as the nation battled its worst health crisis with a 'tsunami' of infections setting a new world record for cases for the third consecutive day.&nbsp;

The decision to exempt customs duty was taken at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to boost oxygen availability in the country.&nbsp;

Customs duty waiver on imported vaccines would help to keep the cost of overseas vaccines low, that are being eyed to supplement domestically made shots ahead of the opening of COVID-19 vaccination to all citizens over 18 years of age.&nbsp;

The government had previously waived customs duty on imported Remdesivir injections and the drug's active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) to boost supplies.&nbsp;

India reported a record 346,786 new infections on Saturday, bringing its total to 1.66 crore. Deaths also rose by a record 2,624 to total 189,544.&nbsp;

Bharat Biotech has fixed the price of its Covid-19 vaccine, Covaxin, at Rs 600 per dose for state governments and at Rs 1,200 per dose for private hospitals, the vaccine maker announced on Saturday.

Bharat Biotech has fixed the price of its Covid-19 vaccine, Covaxin, at Rs 600 per dose for state governments and at Rs 1,200 per dose for private hospitals, the vaccine maker announced on Saturday. In a statement, Bharat Biotech Chairman and Managing Director Krishna M Ella said the company is supplying the vaccine to the Central Government at Rs 150 per dosage. "We would like to state that more than 50 per cent of our capacities have been reserved for Central Government supplies," Ella said. Recovering cost is essential in the journey of innovation towards other vaccines, such as intranasal Covid-19, Chikungunya, Zika, Cholera and others, he added. The company has tagged the vaccine between USD 15-20 for export markets. Earlier this week, Serum Institute of India (SII) had announced a price of Rs 400 per dose for 'Covishield' for state governments and Rs 600 per dose for private hospitals. The company also said for the next two months, it will address the issue of limited capacity by scaling up vaccine production. "Going ahead, 50 per cent of our capacities will be served to the Government of India's vaccination programme, and the remaining 50 per cent of the capacity will be for the state governments and private hospitals," Serum Institute of India had said in a statement. American vaccines in the private market cost more than Rs 1,500 per dose, while Russian and Chinese vaccines cost greater than Rs 750 per dose, it had noted. Covishield comprises over 90 per cent of the 12.76 crore COVID-19 vaccines administered across the country so far, according to government data on Wednesday. Of the 127,605,870 COVID-19 vaccination jabs administered till now, 11,60,65,107 are of Covishield, while 1,15,40,763 are Covaxin, according to the government's CO-WIN portal. Earlier in the day, the government waived customs duty on the import of COVID vaccines as well as medical grade oxygen and related equipment as the nation battled its worst health crisis with a 'tsunami' of infections setting a new world record for cases for the third consecutive day. The decision to exempt customs duty was taken at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to boost oxygen availability in the country. Customs duty waiver on imported vaccines would help to keep the cost of overseas vaccines low, that are being eyed to supplement domestically made shots ahead of the opening of COVID-19 vaccination to all citizens over 18 years of age. The government had previously waived customs duty on imported Remdesivir injections and the drug's active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) to boost supplies. India reported a record 346,786 new infections on Saturday, bringing its total to 1.66 crore. Deaths also rose by a record 2,624 to total 189,544.

Bharat Biotech prices Covaxin at Rs 600 for states, Rs 1,200 for pvt hospitals  

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels.&nbsp;

Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan calls for $174 billion in spending and tax credits to boost electric vehicles (EVs) and charging networks but does not call for phasing out gasoline-powered passenger vehicles.&nbsp;

In a letter that was seen by Reuters, the governors, which also include those of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State and Rhode Island, urged Biden to set standards 'to ensure that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission no later than 2035 with significant milestones along the way to monitor progress’.&nbsp;

They argued that “by establishing a clear regulatory path to ensuring that all vehicles sold in the United States are zero-emission, we can finally clear the air and create high-road jobs.” &nbsp;

The governors also want Biden to set standards and adopt incentives aimed at ensuring 100% zero-emission sales of medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045.&nbsp;

The White House did not immediately comment on the governors’ letter.&nbsp;

States and some lawmakers hope that Biden’s endorsement of a phase-out date will speed the transition to EVs by users and automakers. EVs currently make up just 2% of US vehicle sales.&nbsp;

A number of US lawmakers have urged Biden follow California’s lead, which in September said it planned to end sales of new gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035. Biden’s campaign said last fall he did not support California’s phase-out plan.&nbsp;

In March, a group of 71 House Democrats urged Biden to set tough emissions rules to ensure 60% of new passenger cars and trucks sold are zero-emission by 2030, while 10 US senators urged Biden “to set a date by which new sales of fossil fuel vehicles will end entirely.”&nbsp;

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels.

The governors of a dozen US states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels. Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan calls for $174 billion in spending and tax credits to boost electric vehicles (EVs) and charging networks but does not call for phasing out gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. In a letter that was seen by Reuters, the governors, which also include those of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State and Rhode Island, urged Biden to set standards 'to ensure that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission no later than 2035 with significant milestones along the way to monitor progress’. They argued that “by establishing a clear regulatory path to ensuring that all vehicles sold in the United States are zero-emission, we can finally clear the air and create high-road jobs.” The governors also want Biden to set standards and adopt incentives aimed at ensuring 100% zero-emission sales of medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. The White House did not immediately comment on the governors’ letter. States and some lawmakers hope that Biden’s endorsement of a phase-out date will speed the transition to EVs by users and automakers. EVs currently make up just 2% of US vehicle sales. A number of US lawmakers have urged Biden follow California’s lead, which in September said it planned to end sales of new gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035. Biden’s campaign said last fall he did not support California’s phase-out plan. In March, a group of 71 House Democrats urged Biden to set tough emissions rules to ensure 60% of new passenger cars and trucks sold are zero-emission by 2030, while 10 US senators urged Biden “to set a date by which new sales of fossil fuel vehicles will end entirely.”

12 US states urge Biden to back phasing out gas-powered vehicle sales by 2035 

In a setback for Islamabad, the United Kingdom in its new amended regulations on money laundering and&nbsp;terror financing has listed Pakistan under high-risk states. Pakistan is listed under 21 'high-risk third countries', which includes North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Syria and Yemen.&nbsp;

The 'Amendment of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017' has the amendment with the new list which includes Pakistan. The regulation came into effect on March 26.&nbsp;

The new regulation is a post-Brexit regime and mentioned that replacement of "a country which has been identified by the European Commission as a high-risk third country in delegated acts adopted under Article 9.2 of the fourth money laundering directive” with a new substitute “a high-risk third country”.&nbsp;

Pakistan strongly reacted to the development and said, "UK's assessment leading to the subject regulation is not based on facts", asking London to "review its regulations" and "avoid politically motivated and misplaced measures."&nbsp;

The development comes even as the Financial Action Task Force or FATF's sword continues to hang on Pakistan. The country has been on the financial watchdog's grey list since June 2018, impacting its economy. In the February meeting, the body decided to keep Pakistan on the grey list and gave more time to implement its 27-point action plan. It called on Pakistan to address deficiencies, including "demonstrating effective implementation of targeted financial sanctions against all 1267 and 1373 designated terrorists, specifically those acting for or on their behalf."&nbsp;

In a setback for Islamabad, the United Kingdom in its new amended regulations on money laundering and terror financing has listed Pakistan under high-risk states.

In a setback for Islamabad, the United Kingdom in its new amended regulations on money laundering and terror financing has listed Pakistan under high-risk states. Pakistan is listed under 21 'high-risk third countries', which includes North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Syria and Yemen. The 'Amendment of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017' has the amendment with the new list which includes Pakistan. The regulation came into effect on March 26. The new regulation is a post-Brexit regime and mentioned that replacement of "a country which has been identified by the European Commission as a high-risk third country in delegated acts adopted under Article 9.2 of the fourth money laundering directive” with a new substitute “a high-risk third country”. Pakistan strongly reacted to the development and said, "UK's assessment leading to the subject regulation is not based on facts", asking London to "review its regulations" and "avoid politically motivated and misplaced measures." The development comes even as the Financial Action Task Force or FATF's sword continues to hang on Pakistan. The country has been on the financial watchdog's grey list since June 2018, impacting its economy. In the February meeting, the body decided to keep Pakistan on the grey list and gave more time to implement its 27-point action plan. It called on Pakistan to address deficiencies, including "demonstrating effective implementation of targeted financial sanctions against all 1267 and 1373 designated terrorists, specifically those acting for or on their behalf."

UK classifies Pakistan as 'high risk' state over money laundering, terror financing 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday held a meeting with all chief ministers on the Covid-19 situation in India. The meeting comes at a time when India is facing a second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the meeting, he said that those who want to do politics are already doing it, but he believes in serving the people of India at such a difficult time.

In his interaction with chief ministers to discuss the COVID-19 situation and the ongoing vaccination drive, Modi said he is confident that all CMs, taking all parties and people together, would change the situation in their respective states.

"As far as doing or not doing politics is concerned, I am seeing from day one and I have been putting up with all kinds of statements without joining the issue myself because I believe that serving the people of India is our responsibility," Modi said.

"God has entrusted us this responsibility to serve the people in this difficult situation, we have to fulfil this. Those who want to do politics are already doing it, I don't want to say anything to them," he said.

The Congress-led opposition has criticised the government over its handling of the COVID-19 and the vaccination drive, while the Centre has maintained that its timely steps have been instrumental in effectively dealing with the pandemic.

Also, while some states have flagged a "shortage" of vaccine doses, the Centre has maintained that sufficient quantity of the jabs has been allocated to all the states and that many of them have been unable to inoculate all eligible beneficiaries.

In his remarks, Modi called for 100 per cent vaccination of 45 years plus population in the high caseload districts.

He also stressed on Dawai Bhi, Kadai Bhi (medicines as well as strict preventive measures)", and urged people not to compromise on that.

(With inputs from agencies)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday held a meeting with all chief ministers on the Covid-19 situation in India. The meeting comes at a time when India is facing a second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday held a meeting with all chief ministers on the Covid-19 situation in India. The meeting comes at a time when India is facing a second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. During the meeting, he said that those who want to do politics are already doing it, but he believes in serving the people of India at such a difficult time. In his interaction with chief ministers to discuss the COVID-19 situation and the ongoing vaccination drive, Modi said he is confident that all CMs, taking all parties and people together, would change the situation in their respective states. "As far as doing or not doing politics is concerned, I am seeing from day one and I have been putting up with all kinds of statements without joining the issue myself because I believe that serving the people of India is our responsibility," Modi said. "God has entrusted us this responsibility to serve the people in this difficult situation, we have to fulfil this. Those who want to do politics are already doing it, I don't want to say anything to them," he said. The Congress-led opposition has criticised the government over its handling of the COVID-19 and the vaccination drive, while the Centre has maintained that its timely steps have been instrumental in effectively dealing with the pandemic. Also, while some states have flagged a "shortage" of vaccine doses, the Centre has maintained that sufficient quantity of the jabs has been allocated to all the states and that many of them have been unable to inoculate all eligible beneficiaries. In his remarks, Modi called for 100 per cent vaccination of 45 years plus population in the high caseload districts. He also stressed on Dawai Bhi, Kadai Bhi (medicines as well as strict preventive measures)", and urged people not to compromise on that. (With inputs from agencies)

PM warns against the politicisation of Covid-19 amid verbal duel between Centre, states over vaccine supply

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it.

A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan had passed the order after taking suo motu cognisance in the matter related to the plight of migrant labourers amid the coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The top court today said that it's June 9 order was very clear and asked the Central government and States to ensure that all migrants reach their home within 15 days.

The court asked the authorities concerned to ensure that no migrants have to pay anything to go back to their respective states, villages, and towns.

Hearing the matter few days before the completion of the stipulated time period, the court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to speak with all the States and Union Territories to comply with the order dated June 9 in the matter.

The apex court asked the Central government to ensure that due publicity is given to the orders and fixed the matter for further hearing in July.

The Supreme Court had on June 9 directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it. A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan had passed the order after taking suo motu cognisance in the matter related to the plight of migrant labourers amid the coronavirus-induced lockdown. The top court today said that it's June 9 order was very clear and asked the Central government and States to ensure that all migrants reach their home within 15 days. The court asked the authorities concerned to ensure that no migrants have to pay anything to go back to their respective states, villages, and towns. Hearing the matter few days before the completion of the stipulated time period, the court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to speak with all the States and Union Territories to comply with the order dated June 9 in the matter. The apex court asked the Central government to ensure that due publicity is given to the orders and fixed the matter for further hearing in July. The Supreme Court had on June 9 directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

Supreme Court asks Centre, States to ensure compliance of order to transport migrants back home

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amit-shahs-call-for-hindi-as-national-language-triggers-political-row-249706">Union Home Minister Amit Shah</a> chaired the 29th meeting of the Northern Zonal Council (NZC) here on Friday.

The Chief Minister of Haryana Manohar Lal Khattar, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Council, hosted the meeting.

The Northern Zonal Council consists of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu &amp; Kashmir, and Delhi.

Chief Ministers from the member states in the zone along with two ministers each, administrators of Union Territories, Chief Secretaries and senior officers from the State Governments and the Central Government are members of NZC.

The Council takes up issues involving Centre and States and one/many States falling in the Zone. The Zonal Councils thus provide a forum for resolving disputes and irritants between Centre and States and among many States in the Zone.

The Zonal Councils discuss a broad range of issues which include boundary-related disputes, security, infrastructure-related matters like road, transport, industries, water, power, matters pertaining to forests and environment, housing, education, food security, tourism, transport, etc.

Five Zonal Councils were set up in the year 1957 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The Union Home Minister is the Chairman of each of these five Zonal Councils and Chief Ministers of the host State (to be chosen by routine every year) is the Vice-Chairman. Two more Ministers from each State are nominated as Members by the Governor.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah chaired the 29th meeting of the Northern Zonal Council (NZC) here on Friday. The Chief Minister of Haryana Manohar Lal Khattar, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Council, hosted the meeting.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah chaired the 29th meeting of the Northern Zonal Council (NZC) here on Friday. The Chief Minister of Haryana Manohar Lal Khattar, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Council, hosted the meeting. The Northern Zonal Council consists of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, and Delhi. Chief Ministers from the member states in the zone along with two ministers each, administrators of Union Territories, Chief Secretaries and senior officers from the State Governments and the Central Government are members of NZC. The Council takes up issues involving Centre and States and one/many States falling in the Zone. The Zonal Councils thus provide a forum for resolving disputes and irritants between Centre and States and among many States in the Zone. The Zonal Councils discuss a broad range of issues which include boundary-related disputes, security, infrastructure-related matters like road, transport, industries, water, power, matters pertaining to forests and environment, housing, education, food security, tourism, transport, etc. Five Zonal Councils were set up in the year 1957 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The Union Home Minister is the Chairman of each of these five Zonal Councils and Chief Ministers of the host State (to be chosen by routine every year) is the Vice-Chairman. Two more Ministers from each State are nominated as Members by the Governor.

Home Minister Amit Shah chairs 29th meeting of Northern Zonal Council

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-polls-to-stretch-out-for-over-a-month-from-april-11-to-may-19-results-on-may-23-202404">The 2019 Lok Sabha polls</a> will be held over seven phases beginning April 11, Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora said Sunday.&nbsp;

Arora said the polls would stretch for over a month with polling being held from April 11 to May 19, and that all votes would be counted on May 23.&nbsp;

Polling over the seven phases, he added, will take place on April 11, April 19, April 23, April 29, May 6, May 12, and May 19.&nbsp;

Arora said Sunday that assembly elections would be held in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Odisha along with the Lok Sabha polls.&nbsp;

Here is a detailed break-up of when India's states and union territories will go to the polls.&nbsp;

Phase 1 (April 11)

Andhra Pradesh: 25 seats 
Arunachal Pradesh: 2 seats 
Assam: 5 seats 
Bihar: 4 seats 
Chhattisgarh: 1 seat 
Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats 
Maharashtra: 7 seats 
Manipur: 1 seat 
Meghalaya: 2 seats 
Mizoram: 1 seat 
Nagaland: 1 seat 
Odisha: 4 seats 
Sikkim: 1 seat 
Telangana: 17 seats 
Tripura: 1 seat 
Uttar Pradesh: 10 seats 
Uttarakhand: 5 seats 
West Bengal: 2 seats 
Andaman and Nicobar Islands: 1 seat 
Lakshadweep: 1 seat

Phase 2 (April 18)

Assam: 5 seats 
Bihar: 5 seats 
Chhattisgarh: 3 seats 
Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats 
Karnataka: 14 seats 
Maharashtra: 10 seats 
Manipur: 1 seat 
Odisha: 5 seats 
Tamil Nadu: 39 seats 
Tripura: 1 seat 
Uttar Pradesh: 8 seats 
West Bengal: 3 seats 
Puducherry: 1 seat

Phase 3 (April 23)

Assam: 4 seats 
Bihar: 5 seats 
Chhattisgarh: 7 seats 
Gujarat: 26 seats 
Goa: 2 
Jammu and Kashmir: 1 seat 
Karnataka: 14 seats 
Kerala: 20 seats 
Maharashtra: 14 seats 
Odisha: 6 seats 
Uttar Pradesh: 10 seats 
West Bengal: 5 seats 
Dadra and Nagar Haveli: 1 seat 
Daman and Diu: 1 seat

Phase 4 (April 29)

Bihar: 5 seats 
Jammu and Kashmir: 1 seat 
Jharkhand: 3 seats 
Madhya Pradesh: 6 seats 
Maharashtra: 17 seats 
Odisha: 6 seats 
Rajasthan: 13 seats 
Uttar Pradesh: 13 seats 
West Bengal: 8 seats

Phase 5 (May 6)

Bihar: 5 seats 
Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats 
Jharkhand: 4 seats 
Madhya Pradesh: 7 seats 
Rajasthan: 12 seats 
Uttar Pradesh: 14 seats 
West Bengal: 7 seats

Phase 6 (May 12)

Bihar: 8 seats 
Haryana: 10 seats 
Jharkhand: 4 seats 
Madhya Pradesh: 8 seats 
Uttar Pradesh: 14 seats 
West Bengal: 8 seats 
Delhi: 7 seats

Phase 7 (May 19)

Bihar: 8 seats 
Jharkhand: 3 seats 
Madhya Pradesh: 8 seats 
Punjab: 13 seats 
West Bengal: 9 seats 
Chandigarh: 1 seat 
Uttar Pradesh: 13 seats

The 2019 Lok Sabha polls will be held over seven phases beginning April 11, Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora said Sunday. Arora said the polls would stretch for over a month with polling being held from April 11 to May 19, and that all votes would be counted on May 23.

The 2019 Lok Sabha polls will be held over seven phases beginning April 11, Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora said Sunday. Arora said the polls would stretch for over a month with polling being held from April 11 to May 19, and that all votes would be counted on May 23. Polling over the seven phases, he added, will take place on April 11, April 19, April 23, April 29, May 6, May 12, and May 19. Arora said Sunday that assembly elections would be held in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Odisha along with the Lok Sabha polls. Here is a detailed break-up of when India's states and union territories will go to the polls. Phase 1 (April 11) Andhra Pradesh: 25 seats Arunachal Pradesh: 2 seats Assam: 5 seats Bihar: 4 seats Chhattisgarh: 1 seat Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats Maharashtra: 7 seats Manipur: 1 seat Meghalaya: 2 seats Mizoram: 1 seat Nagaland: 1 seat Odisha: 4 seats Sikkim: 1 seat Telangana: 17 seats Tripura: 1 seat Uttar Pradesh: 10 seats Uttarakhand: 5 seats West Bengal: 2 seats Andaman and Nicobar Islands: 1 seat Lakshadweep: 1 seat Phase 2 (April 18) Assam: 5 seats Bihar: 5 seats Chhattisgarh: 3 seats Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats Karnataka: 14 seats Maharashtra: 10 seats Manipur: 1 seat Odisha: 5 seats Tamil Nadu: 39 seats Tripura: 1 seat Uttar Pradesh: 8 seats West Bengal: 3 seats Puducherry: 1 seat Phase 3 (April 23) Assam: 4 seats Bihar: 5 seats Chhattisgarh: 7 seats Gujarat: 26 seats Goa: 2 Jammu and Kashmir: 1 seat Karnataka: 14 seats Kerala: 20 seats Maharashtra: 14 seats Odisha: 6 seats Uttar Pradesh: 10 seats West Bengal: 5 seats Dadra and Nagar Haveli: 1 seat Daman and Diu: 1 seat Phase 4 (April 29) Bihar: 5 seats Jammu and Kashmir: 1 seat Jharkhand: 3 seats Madhya Pradesh: 6 seats Maharashtra: 17 seats Odisha: 6 seats Rajasthan: 13 seats Uttar Pradesh: 13 seats West Bengal: 8 seats Phase 5 (May 6) Bihar: 5 seats Jammu and Kashmir: 2 seats Jharkhand: 4 seats Madhya Pradesh: 7 seats Rajasthan: 12 seats Uttar Pradesh: 14 seats West Bengal: 7 seats Phase 6 (May 12) Bihar: 8 seats Haryana: 10 seats Jharkhand: 4 seats Madhya Pradesh: 8 seats Uttar Pradesh: 14 seats West Bengal: 8 seats Delhi: 7 seats Phase 7 (May 19) Bihar: 8 seats Jharkhand: 3 seats Madhya Pradesh: 8 seats Punjab: 13 seats West Bengal: 9 seats Chandigarh: 1 seat Uttar Pradesh: 13 seats

2019 Lok Sabha elections: Check when your state, UT goes to the polls

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference.

On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief.

DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court.

Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs.

The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs.

It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent.

The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list.

Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms.

The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police.

It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance.

It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP.

The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years.

The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs). The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference. On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief. DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court. Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs. The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs. It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent. The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list. Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms. The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years. However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance. It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP. The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years. The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.

Supreme Court dismisses pleas of 5 states seeking modification of its order on DGPs

Every five years, a finance commission decides how to split India's tax revenue between the Centre and India's states.&nbsp;

A major factor deciding the split is a state's population. The bigger a state's population, the greater the share of tax revenue given to it.&nbsp;

That however, say the experts, is also unfair for it punishes the states that have done the hard work of controlling their populations.&nbsp;

There is at the moment a massive difference in fertility rates — the rate at which a state's population grows — between the southern and other states, with the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra, Telangana, and the western state of Maharashtra having a fertility rate of about 1.5.&nbsp;

Bihar on the other hand has a fertility rate of about 3.5, and the other Bimaru states a rate of about 2.5.&nbsp;

The problem cropped up when the previous finance commission switched over to the 2011 Census to decide&nbsp;the split the commissions had so far been using the 1971 Census.&nbsp;

Tamil Nadu's politicians, including Chief Minister E Palaniswami and Leader of the Opposition MK Stalin, have said a division on the basis of the 2011 Census will be patently unfair. They say they have done the hard work of controlling their populations and instead of being rewarded for having done so, they are now being punished.&nbsp;

They have also accused the Centre of "highway robbery". And are insisting the current 15th finance commission go back to the 1971 Census.&nbsp;

BJP general secretary Ram Madhav met on Wednesday with Finance Commission Chairperson NK Singh, news reports said, and promised that the southern states would not lose out.&nbsp;

The reports however did not say how he would ensure that.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Tax revenue is divided on the basis of population. The larger a state's population, the higher its share of revenue. That, say the southern states and experts, is patently unfair

Every five years, a finance commission decides how to split India's tax revenue between the Centre and India's states. A major factor deciding the split is a state's population. The bigger a state's population, the greater the share of tax revenue given to it. That however, say the experts, is also unfair for it punishes the states that have done the hard work of controlling their populations. There is at the moment a massive difference in fertility rates — the rate at which a state's population grows — between the southern and other states, with the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra, Telangana, and the western state of Maharashtra having a fertility rate of about 1.5. Bihar on the other hand has a fertility rate of about 3.5, and the other Bimaru states a rate of about 2.5. The problem cropped up when the previous finance commission switched over to the 2011 Census to decide the split the commissions had so far been using the 1971 Census. Tamil Nadu's politicians, including Chief Minister E Palaniswami and Leader of the Opposition MK Stalin, have said a division on the basis of the 2011 Census will be patently unfair. They say they have done the hard work of controlling their populations and instead of being rewarded for having done so, they are now being punished. They have also accused the Centre of "highway robbery". And are insisting the current 15th finance commission go back to the 1971 Census. BJP general secretary Ram Madhav met on Wednesday with Finance Commission Chairperson NK Singh, news reports said, and promised that the southern states would not lose out. The reports however did not say how he would ensure that.

Southern states accuse Centre of 'highway robbery', say not getting fair share of tax revenue

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was a &quot;demand-driven scheme&quot; and it has not curtailed the demand for funds by the states under it.

Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and N V Ramana that there were no instances where the Centre has either capped number of days of employment under the Act or not released funds to the states.

&quot;We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India,&quot; he submitted.

Venugopal put forwards the arguments while countering the submissions of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO-turned-political party Swaraj Abhiyan.

Bhushan claimed in the court that the Centre has no authority in law to reduce the &quot;person days&quot; from the projection made by the states under the Act and due of lack of funds, the states were unable to give employement to the people.

&quot;The Act provides for 100 days of employement (in a year). It is a statutory obligation,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;They are denying statutory rights to the people.&quot;

At the outset, the AG told the bench that according to the provision of the Act, a Central Employment Guarantee Council was there and the petitioner could make a representation before the body since a large number of issues were raised in the plea.

When the bench asked Bhushan about it, he said issues raised were &quot;purely legal&quot; and the apex court should deal with them.

&quot;If you (petitioner) are saying there are purely legal issues, we will hear them but no further affidavit should be filed. Or you give a representation before the council. They will give us a report and we will see,&quot; it said.

When the AG said that the petitioner should appear before the council, Bhushan claimed, &quot;That body is filled with politically affiliated persons.&quot;

Venugopal contended, &quot;The petitioner is now a political party and thus making a political attack.&quot;

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 13 and said that it would go into the legal issues only.

During the hearing, the bench asked the AG as to how funds were allotted to the states under the Act.

A senior government official, who was present in the court, explained to the bench about the process of fund- allocation to the states and said there was no paucity of funds under the Act.

The official also said that in the financial year 2017- 18, initially Rs 48,000 crore was allotted under the Act but when the states demanded more funds, the Ministry of Finance allotted an additional Rs 7,000 crore.

The AG said that in 2016-17 financial year, 20 states crossed the agreed budget and the Centre provided the funds to them.

The Centre had in December last year refuted the claims of the petitioner that there was a delay on the government&#39;s part in releasing funds under the Act.

The court, which is hearing the plea which has sought relief measures in drought-hit states in the country, had earlier said that state food commissions, as mandated under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, should be set up even in states not hit by drought.

The plea has alleged that parts of 12 states-- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh-- were hit by drought and authorities were not providing adequate relief.&nbsp;

'We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India,' the Centre said Thursday

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was a "demand-driven scheme" and it has not curtailed the demand for funds by the states under it. Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and N V Ramana that there were no instances where the Centre has either capped number of days of employment under the Act or not released funds to the states. "We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India," he submitted. Venugopal put forwards the arguments while countering the submissions of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO-turned-political party Swaraj Abhiyan. Bhushan claimed in the court that the Centre has no authority in law to reduce the "person days" from the projection made by the states under the Act and due of lack of funds, the states were unable to give employement to the people. "The Act provides for 100 days of employement (in a year). It is a statutory obligation," he said, adding, "They are denying statutory rights to the people." At the outset, the AG told the bench that according to the provision of the Act, a Central Employment Guarantee Council was there and the petitioner could make a representation before the body since a large number of issues were raised in the plea. When the bench asked Bhushan about it, he said issues raised were "purely legal" and the apex court should deal with them. "If you (petitioner) are saying there are purely legal issues, we will hear them but no further affidavit should be filed. Or you give a representation before the council. They will give us a report and we will see," it said. When the AG said that the petitioner should appear before the council, Bhushan claimed, "That body is filled with politically affiliated persons." Venugopal contended, "The petitioner is now a political party and thus making a political attack." The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 13 and said that it would go into the legal issues only. During the hearing, the bench asked the AG as to how funds were allotted to the states under the Act. A senior government official, who was present in the court, explained to the bench about the process of fund- allocation to the states and said there was no paucity of funds under the Act. The official also said that in the financial year 2017- 18, initially Rs 48,000 crore was allotted under the Act but when the states demanded more funds, the Ministry of Finance allotted an additional Rs 7,000 crore. The AG said that in 2016-17 financial year, 20 states crossed the agreed budget and the Centre provided the funds to them. The Centre had in December last year refuted the claims of the petitioner that there was a delay on the government's part in releasing funds under the Act. The court, which is hearing the plea which has sought relief measures in drought-hit states in the country, had earlier said that state food commissions, as mandated under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, should be set up even in states not hit by drought. The plea has alleged that parts of 12 states-- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh-- were hit by drought and authorities were not providing adequate relief.

Have not curtailed demand for NREGA funds by states: Govt to SC

states

States, News on States, stories on States, articles on States, States stories at Wion, States news, States latest news