House clears two bills modifying lists of SC, ST in Andhra, Odisha
The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday passed two bills which seek to modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.
The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday passed two bills which seek to modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.
The Upper House cleared the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024 by voice vote.
The first bill seeks to modify the list of Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh to include four primitive communities, while the second one aims to modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Odisha to enlist three tribes. Both bills were steered by minister of tribal affairs Arjun Munda in the House.
After the Question Hour, the House adopted a motion moved by parliamentary affairs minister Pralhad Joshi to suspend the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha for consideration and passage of three bills – The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024; the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024.
Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan spoke in support of the The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
Pradhan accused the Odisha cabinet of passing a law that could have led to the usurping of tribal land. He said this had led to massive protests by tribals, which forced the Odisha cabinet to “rescind” the move.
Biju Janata Dal member Sasmit Patra slammed Pradhan for denigrating the council of ministers of his state. Citing rule 238 (5), Patra criticised Pradhan for seeking Delhi’s intervention in matters of state, calling it an attack on federalism. The Chair, Jagdeep Dhankar, said he did not find any merit in Patra’s intervention under rule 238 (5) and urged him not to “press on the point of order”, helping to cool matters down.