“The sentiments of many people are attached to the word Bhumiputra and the government is ready to drop this word [from the Bill]. I assure you that we will drop the word Bhumiputra from the Bill. It is possible to name it Goa Bhumi Adhikarini Bill,” Sawant said.
The Goa Assembly has passed the Goa Bhumiputra Adhikarini Bill, 2021 recognising anyone living in the state for 30 years or more as a 'Bhumiputra (son of the soil)'. What are the provisions of the Bill, and why is the Opposition objecting?
Goa health minister Vishwajit Rane had in May stoked a controversy after he claimed that a drop in oxygen levels in the Covid-19 ward of the government-run Goa Medical College (GMC) in the early hours of the day had led to deaths of several Covid patients.
BJP's Nilesh Cabral, power minister of Goa, and AAP's Satyendar Jain, power minister of Delhi, made their cases for or against the AAP's poll promise of free power up to 300 units per household per month in the state.
The National Green Tribunal had, last month, ordered the Goa government to hold fresh public hearings after the Goa Foundation had moved the NGT against the alleged deficiencies in the conduct of public hearings held by the state government on March 7.
Earlier this week, Chief Minister Pramod Sawant had said that the government is planning to allow entry of fully vaccinated persons into Goa. He, however, said that at this stage this pertained to those coming into Goa for business and not for tourism.
Disposing of all but one PIL filed by the South Goa Advocates Association related to Covid-19 management, a division bench of Justices M S Sonak and M S Jawalkar said it was neither possible nor advisable for the court to micromanage issues related to Covid-19.
Health Minister Vishwajit Rane had stoked a controversy when he claimed on May 11 that 26 people had died in the early hours of that day in Goa Medical College and Hospital due to drop in oxygen levels and sought a High Court inquiry into the matter.
Ruling there was no medical evidence and there were “facts” that “create doubt on (her) truthfulness,” the court said the woman’s messages to the accused “clearly establish” that she was neither “traumatised nor terrified” and this “completely belies” the prosecution's case.