YSRSU seeks action against private schools flouting rules
YSRSU district president Chandrasekhar Yadav alleged that the private school managements in the district have denied free seats for eligible candidates under Section 12(1)(C) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, for the academic year 2024–25. The students' wing of YSRCP in the representation demanded an inquiry and legal action against the respective school managements.
Mr. Chandrasekhar Yadav also wanted action against educational institutions operating unfit buses in violation of government regulations. He said that some school bus drivers do not even possess valid licenses and the buses which are unfit but are transporting students should be seized immediately.
Later addressing the media, Mr. Chandrasekhar Yadav alleged that private and corporate educational institutions are being excessively promoted while public education is being neglected. He also pointed out that many private and corporate school buses are overloaded with students, violating safety norms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
19 minutes ago
- Hans India
Judicial custody of 11 accused extended till AugUST 1
Vijayawada: The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) special court here on Tuesday extended the judicial remand of 11 accused in the Andhra Pradesh liquor scam case up to August 1. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) officials produced the accused before the court upon completion of their previous remand period. The accused include Kessireddy Rajashekar Reddy, former IT adviser to former chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy; K Dhanunjaya Reddy, secretary in the CMO; Krishna Mohan Reddy, officer on special duty (OSD) to then CM; director of Bharati Cements Balaji Govindappa; former MLA Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy; Rajashekar Reddy's personal assistant Dilip Kumar, Chanikya and Sajjala Sridhar Reddy. Nine accused were brought from the district jail in Vijayawada, while the remaining two were brought from Guntur jail. After the court extended their custody, they were sent back to jail. The court extended judicial custody till August 1 so that all 12 accused arrested in the case so far can be produced together on completion of their remand term. YSRCP MP P V Midhun Reddy was arrested in the case on July 19. The court had sent him to judicial custody till August 1. He is currently lodged in Rajahmundry Central Jail. The alleged scam had occurred during YSRCP rule between 2019 and 2024. After TDP-led NDA came to power last year, a case was registered at CID Police Station in Mangalagiri under sections 409, 420, 120 (B), r/w 34 and 37 of IPC and section 7, 7A, 8, 12, 13 (1), (b), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The Crime Investigation Department (CID) initially conducted an investigation following a complaint by an official of the Excise Department. Later, the government constituted SIT, headed by NTR District Commissioner of Police SV Rajashekhar Babu, to probe the case. The SIT found large-scale irregularities and fund misappropriation in the liquor policy implemented during 2019-24. Investigators reportedly uncovered a kickback network involving nearly Rs 3,500 crore siphoned off over five years. There are allegations that the YSRCP leaders encouraged a new liquor policy, floated new brands, and received kickbacks from the distillery companies, causing huge losses to the government.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC declines plea seeking transfer of Waqf Act petition from Delhi HC
A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said that courts are increasingly being used for generating newspaper headlines rather than genuine legal redress Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking transfer of a petition challenging the 1995 Waqf Act from the Delhi High Court to the apex court. A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said that courts are increasingly being used for generating newspaper headlines rather than genuine legal redress. The bench, which also comprised Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, made sharp remarks while hearing a transfer petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition sought to move his challenge to various provisions of the Waqf Act from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court. "This issue is already pending before this court. Why do you want more petitions," the CJI asked at the outset. The bench noted that an earlier bench led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had already set a clear timeline for admitting such challenges. The court had also permitted fresh petitioners to file intervention applications in the ongoing batch of 11 petitions challenging similar provisions of the Act. Appearing in person, Upadhyay argued, "I was the first person to challenge this," insisting that his petition was the one that drew public attention to the alleged "land grab" by waqf boards involving over 40 lakh acres. "You are always the first. What is the hurry to rush to court? Only after seeing the newspapers? Petitions are nowadays being filed only for the newspapers," the CJI said. "We are not inclined to entertain the prayer." Upadhyay's writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 4 to 9 and Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He said that these provisions are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, and 27 of the Constitution. A similar challenge to the Waqf Act and its 2025 amendments is already pending before the Supreme Court, where a batch of petitions is being heard.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Himachal tribal woman marries 2 brothers: What the law says on polyandry
The Trans-Giri region in Himachal Pradesh witnessed a centuries-old customary practice recently, when a woman, Sunita Chauhan, married two brothers, Pradeep and Kapil Negi. This polyandrous tradition is locally known as 'Jodidaran'.The Hatti tribe has seen five such marriages in the past six years. Notably, the community was granted the status of Scheduled Tribes (STs) by the Centre in 2022. Their practice of polyandry has roots in the desire to preserve undivided family land, particularly agricultural land. According to supporters of the tradition, it has also served as a means to reinforce familial bonds between brothers and provided more security to women. Is polyandry legal in India? Polyandry and polygamy are outlawed by the Special Marriages Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and criminalised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While religious personal laws specifically govern marriage, the Constitution also recognises the relevance of prevailing customary laws among STs. The Constitution, under Article 342, recognises STs and accords them a distinct legal status. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs marriage applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Section 2(2) of the Act includes a carve-out stating that its provisions do not apply to STs 'unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.' In the absence of such a notification, the Hattis continue to be governed by laws laid down under their customs, which are undocumented and uncodified. The Act defines 'custom' under Section 3 as a rule that has been 'observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law.' But for a customary law to be valid, it must also hold the standard of certainty, reasonableness, and consistency with public policy. When challenged, these laws do not automatically gain legal recognition; courts have to be provided with proper evidence that such customary laws prevail. Much debate surrounds the applicability of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to such situations. In 2024, the Uttarakhand government, by enacting UCC, provided a legal framework for inheritance, marriage, divorce, and adoption. The UCC mandates the registration of marriage, establishes equal rights of spouses across religions and communities and prohibits polygamy. However, it does not apply to STs, following a Constitutional pattern of upholding their customary practices. Section 2 of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025 states that 'these rules shall not be applicable to the members of any Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 read with Article 342 of the Constitution of India and the persons and group of persons whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution of India.' What has the court said on the issue? Increasingly, courts have read customary laws prevalent among STs with the rights to equality, dignity and life and liberty as enshrined under the Constitution. Any law that is in conflict with fundamental rights is struck down as unconstitutional. For example, the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq as customary and therefore unconstitutional under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, dignity and the right to life. Similarly, in 2018, the SC ruled that the customary practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabrimala temple in Kerala was unconstitutional. The apex court held that this restriction violated the fundamental rights of women, including the right to equality and the freedom of religion under Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution. On July 17, the SC in Ram Charan & Ors. Versus Sukhram & Ors, a case related to succession rights for tribal women, reaffirmed this principle. It held that when a custom is silent on inheritance, there is no restriction in law that women should be prevented from inheriting ancestral property. The apex court observed that 'customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.' The ruling affirmed that excluding female heirs solely based on customary male preferences violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
