rape and murder chesinodu bane unnadu
cover up chesi evidence lu cheripesina rendu parties baane unnay
genuine ga fight chesina mana meeda case lu @PawanKalyan
తెలిసిన కాపు స్నేహితుడు ఒకడు ..
క���పు పిల్లోడు ని లాక్ అప్ డెత్ చేస్తే కనీసం ఉలుకు పలుకు లేదు ..
ఈడు కులభావన పెట్టుకొని ఓట్లు వెయ్యండి అంటే వేసాం ..
మల్లి సుగాలి ప్రీతీ అంటాడు దేశం అంటాడు
చూస్తే తెలుగు దేశం అయ్యింది లాస్ట్ కి అన్నాడు ... 🤣🤣
కుట్రల స్క్రిప్ట్ సూపర్.. కానీ క్లైమాక్స్లోనే ట్విస్ట్ రివర్స్ అయింది!
సాయికృష్ణ మిస్సింగ్ కేసును అడ్డం పెట్టుకుని.. ఆ తల్లి విజయలక్ష్మి బాధతో పొలిటికల్ గేమ్ ఆడాలని చూశారు. అటు చంద్రబాబుని, ఇటు పవన్ కళ్యాణ్ ని విలన్లను చేస్తూ కూటమి ప్రభుత్వంపై నెగిటివ్ వేవ్ క్రియేట్ చేయాలని జగన్ బ్యాచ్ ఎంతగానో ఆశపడింద��. కానీ, సీఎం చంద్రబాబు ఆ తల్లికి ఇచ్చిన భరోసా చూశాక.. "మాకు న్యాయం జరుగుతుంది" అని ఆమె నమ్మకంగా చెప్పేసరికి, కుట్రలు చేసిన ��ాళ్ళ గొంతులో పచ్చి వెలక్కాయ పడినట్లయింది.
BREAKING NEWS
TDP - JSP VERSION!✅️
29 CASES ఉన్న సాయికృష్ణ కుటుంబ సభ్యులను పరామర్శించిన గద్దె రామ్మోహన్.
29 CASES ఉన్న సాయికృష్ణ కుప్రభుత్వం తరఫున అండగా ఉంటాం.
29 CASES ఉన్న సాయికృష్ణ కుటుంబానికి న్యాయం చేస్తాం.
- గద్దె రామ్మోహన్
Crime is crime, regardless of ideology, party, or popularity.
Accountability should be celebrated, not criminal records.
Ilanti yedavalu bhoomiki bharam..
#RuleOfLaw#Democracy
Finally ,
If “equal voter weight” is the goal, then the current system already falls short: a Bihar MP represents ~2x the people of a Tamil Nadu MP, meaning Tamil Nadu voters effectively have higher parliamentary access per person.
Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here.
First, Article 81 envisages that seats in the Lok Sabha be allocated on the basis of population. The constitutional freeze linked to the 1971 Census was always temporary and was due to expire in 2026. In the absence of any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on 2026 Census will see several southern states facing a sizable reduction in their share. Due to your opposition to the bill, the Congress party is squarely responsible for this.
Second, India in 2026 is not India in 1971. Our population has grown from about 55 crore to nearly 146 crore. While Lok Sabha membership has remained virtually unchanged, the average MP today represents nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed. Expanding the House is therefore a democratic necessity, not a political choice.
Third, if seats are increased to better reflect today’s population realities, retaining each state’s proportional share is a reasonable and balanced approach. It protects states that successfully implemented population stabilisation while simultaneously improving representation for all Indians.
More fundamentally, it is worth remembering that no state has a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective is precisely the opposite: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight. The continuation of the present proportional balance is not a constitutional entitlement; it is NDA’s way of ensuring that states that acted responsibly are not disadvantaged.
As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the floor of the House. Whether a simple majority or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all states leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the same proportional increase, nobody gains an advantage over anyone else!
@ShashiTharoor
3) A uniform seat increase doesn't "reflects today's population ." It simply preserves yesterday's distribution. Bihar MP still represents far more people than a Tamil Nadu MP after the increase, the representation gap increased. The numbers get bigger; the imbalance stays.
Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here.
First, Article 81 envisages that seats in the Lok Sabha be allocated on the basis of population. The constitutional freeze linked to the 1971 Census was always temporary and was due to expire in 2026. In the absence of any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on 2026 Census will see several southern states facing a sizable reduction in their share. Due to your opposition to the bill, the Congress party is squarely responsible for this.
Second, India in 2026 is not India in 1971. Our population has grown from about 55 crore to nearly 146 crore. While Lok Sabha membership has remained virtually unchanged, the average MP today represents nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed. Expanding the House is therefore a democratic necessity, not a political choice.
Third, if seats are increased to better reflect today’s population realities, retaining each state’s proportional share is a reasonable and balanced approach. It protects states that successfully implemented population stabilisation while simultaneously improving representation for all Indians.
More fundamentally, it is worth remembering that no state has a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective is precisely the opposite: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight. The continuation of the present proportional balance is not a constitutional entitlement; it is NDA’s way of ensuring that states that acted responsibly are not disadvantaged.
As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the floor of the House. Whether a simple majority or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all states leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the same proportional increase, nobody gains an advantage over anyone else!
@ShashiTharoor
2) "India is not 1971 anymore". Over the last 50 years, some states invested heavily in education, healthcare,women's empowerment and population stabilization. If today's rules reduce their voice because of those successes is sending the wrong policy signal for the next 50 years
Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here.
First, Article 81 envisages that seats in the Lok Sabha be allocated on the basis of population. The constitutional freeze linked to the 1971 Census was always temporary and was due to expire in 2026. In the absence of any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on 2026 Census will see several southern states facing a sizable reduction in their share. Due to your opposition to the bill, the Congress party is squarely responsible for this.
Second, India in 2026 is not India in 1971. Our population has grown from about 55 crore to nearly 146 crore. While Lok Sabha membership has remained virtually unchanged, the average MP today represents nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed. Expanding the House is therefore a democratic necessity, not a political choice.
Third, if seats are increased to better reflect today’s population realities, retaining each state’s proportional share is a reasonable and balanced approach. It protects states that successfully implemented population stabilisation while simultaneously improving representation for all Indians.
More fundamentally, it is worth remembering that no state has a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective is precisely the opposite: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight. The continuation of the present proportional balance is not a constitutional entitlement; it is NDA’s way of ensuring that states that acted responsibly are not disadvantaged.
As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the floor of the House. Whether a simple majority or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all states leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the same proportional increase, nobody gains an advantage over anyone else!
@ShashiTharoor
1) If Article 81 is about representation based on population, a flat 50% seat increase doesn't achieve it. Even after the increase, a Bihar MP would represent ~2.33 million people while a Tamil Nadu MP would represent ~1.39 million. That's a 68% gap. Where is the equality?
Dear Dr. Tharoor, a few points here.
First, Article 81 envisages that seats in the Lok Sabha be allocated on the basis of population. The constitutional freeze linked to the 1971 Census was always temporary and was due to expire in 2026. In the absence of any intervention, a fresh delimitation based on 2026 Census will see several southern states facing a sizable reduction in their share. Due to your opposition to the bill, the Congress party is squarely responsible for this.
Second, India in 2026 is not India in 1971. Our population has grown from about 55 crore to nearly 146 crore. While Lok Sabha membership has remained virtually unchanged, the average MP today represents nearly 2.5 times as many citizens as an MP did when the freeze was imposed. Expanding the House is therefore a democratic necessity, not a political choice.
Third, if seats are increased to better reflect today’s population realities, retaining each state’s proportional share is a reasonable and balanced approach. It protects states that successfully implemented population stabilisation while simultaneously improving representation for all Indians.
More fundamentally, it is worth remembering that no state has a constitutional right to greater representation per voter than another. The Constitution’s objective is precisely the opposite: that every citizen’s vote should carry, as nearly as practicable, equal weight. The continuation of the present proportional balance is not a constitutional entitlement; it is NDA’s way of ensuring that states that acted responsibly are not disadvantaged.
As for your thought experiment, parliamentary influence ultimately flows from votes on the floor of the House. Whether a simple majority or a two-thirds majority is required, a proportionate increase for all states leaves those equations unchanged. If everyone receives the same proportional increase, nobody gains an advantage over anyone else!
@ShashiTharoor
జగన్ రెడ్డి @ysjagan , Generally officers తప్పు చేస్తేనే తప్పు అని ఒప్పుకోరు, ఇక్కడ ఏకంగా DSC జాబ్స్ మీద నువ్వు చేస్తున్న రాజకీయానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా IAS officers ప్రెస్ మీట్ పెడుతున్నారంటే అర్ధం అవ్వటం లేదా ఏ తప్పు జరగలేదని.
ప్రభుత్వంతో సంబంధం లేని,వెన్నుపోటు సాయ��ాడికి 10కోట్లు ప్రభుత్వ సొమ్ము ఎందుకు ఖర్చు పెట్టారు?
వైజాగ్ స్టీల్ ప్లాంట్ కూడా ఒక లిమిటెడ్ కంపెనీ కదా దాని దగ్గర తీసుకొని ఇవ్వచ్చుగా ఇప్పుడు
తప్పుడు నా కొడుకు కూడా ఎదో ఒక సమయంలో తప్పు ని ఒప్పుకుంటాడు.పచ్చ రక్తం లోనే లేదుగా ఇలాంటి మార్పూ
ఏపీ నుంచి రాజ్యసభ అభ్యర్థులు దాదాపు ఖరారు!
రాజ్యసభకు టీడీపీ కోటా నుంచి మంత్రి నారా లోకేష్ సన్నిహితులు కిలారి రాజేష్, సానా సతీష్ (రెన్యూవల్), చింతకాయల విజయ్
జనసేన నుంచి లింగమనేని రమేష్ (చంద్రబాబు కరకట్ట నివాసం యజమాని)
జనసేన నుండి టీడీపీ వ్యక్తికే రాజ్యసభ ఇస్తారంటూ జనసేనలో చర్చ
బీజేపీకి ఒక్క సీటు కూడా లేదని కూటమిలో ప్రచారం
టీడీపీకి 3 సీట్లు, జనసేనకు ఒకటి తీసుకోవాలని నిర్ణయం
టీడీపీ-జనసేన కోటా సీట్లు ఆర్థికంగా బలంగా ఉన్న నేతలకే అంటూ చర్చ
ఈసారి కూడా టీడీపీ సీనియర్ లీడర్ వర్ల రామయ్యకు మొండి చెయ్యి తప్పదంటున్న విశ్లేషకులు