36 lakh school kits, sans political branding, distributed to students in State
A statement released by the Department of School Education said of this total expenditure, ₹778.68 crore was contributed by the State and ₹175.03 crore by the Centre. Each kit is worth around ₹2,279.
These school kits comprise three sets of uniform cloth (olive green pants/skirts and light yellow-green striped shirts), one pair of shoes, two pairs of socks, a belt and a school bag besides textbooks, workbooks and notebooks.
Students of Class 6 also get Oxford English-English-Telugu dictionary, for Class 1 a pictorial dictionary and dictionaries in Urdu, Tamil and Odia wherever applicable.
The statement said for the first time, the Andhra Pradesh government partnered with the Quality Council of India (QCI) to conduct a three-stage quality check (raw materials, production and packaging) for the kits which have been named, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Vidyarthi Mithra Kits. This marks a departure from political branding seen during the previous government, when the scheme was named 'Jagananna Vidya Kanuka'.
'The focus of the TDP-led NDA government in the State is on keeping politics away from education. We want schoolchildren to do their learning without labels,' said the statement.
It may be noted here that the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme launched by the previous YSRCP government, drew significant public attention. Branded heavily with the image and name of then Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy, the kits became a hallmark of the government's welfare-driven narrative.
Promoted as a flagship education initiative, the scheme was celebrated in YSRCP circles as a symbol of inclusive development. However, critics argued that the Jagan government blurred the lines between governance and political promotion, sparking a debate over the use of public resources for personal branding.
The NDA government is also said to have saved ₹63.80 crore, compared to previous year, by using an online e-procurement system for tenders, which ensured complete transparency and efficiency, said the statement.
..
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
Andhra's mango procurement sets model for other states
Tirupati/Chittoor: After chilli and tobacco farmers, mango growers are now in focus as YSRCP chief Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy looks to raise the political heat in the state. A bumper mango yield this year has brought little joy to farmers, who are struggling with falling prices. Despite the state government's swift action, announcing subsidies and deploying officials to assist distressed farmers, the issue has turned political. Looking to capitalise on the unrest, Jagan will visit Bangarupalem market yard on July 9 to console mango farmers. In fact, the government claims that Andhra Pradesh's proactive, farmer-centric approach to supporting Totapuri mango growers is emerging as a model for other states. It has stepped in not just with aid, but with reassurance, encouraging farmers and helping them cope with the current crisis. Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu met with the farmers and pulp units' representatives in Kuppam during his recent visit and created confidence among them. He categorically told the pulp units that the government will provide whatever help they needed and even wrote to the centre to reduce the GST on pulp products. Tirupati and Chittoor collectors Dr S Venkateswar and Sumit Kumar have assured that procurement is in full swing and that the promised subsidy will be provided without any cap on quantity or time. Totapuri mango cultivation is a major agricultural activity in the state, with mango crops grown across 3.98 lakh hectares, yielding an estimated 49.85 lakh metric tonnes (MT) and a productivity rate of 12.5 MT per hectare. The erstwhile Chittoor district — now divided into Chittoor, Tirupati, and Annamayya — is a key production hub for Totapuri mangoes, with around 80,000 hectares under cultivation and nearly 76,700 farmers engaged in the activity. Tirupati district alone accounts for 14,582 hectares with a projected yield of 1.45 lakh MT this season. Following multiple review meetings held in May at both district and state levels, on June 6, the Chief Minister announced a subsidy of Rs 4 per kilogram for Totapuri mangoes. This brought the total procurement price to Rs 12 per kilogram, with Rs 8 to be paid by processors or traders. It is worth noting that while the neighbouring state of Karnataka limits its procurement to just one month, Andhra Pradesh has committed to continue the process until the last fruit is procured in July and August. Moreover, Karnataka has capped procurement at 4 MT per hectare, whereas Andhra Pradesh has imposed no such restrictions. A proposal has also been submitted to the Union minister for agriculture, seeking the release of Rs 130 crore under the Market Intervention Scheme (MIS) to further stabilise the market. The Collectors said that these steps are aimed at shielding farmers from global and national market fluctuations beyond their control. Procurement of Totapuri mangoes began on June 9. As of July 5, 67,980 MT of mangoes have been procured from 10,046 farmers in Tirupati district, while Chittoor district saw procurement of 2.23 lakh MT from 38,706 farmers. The Collectors said that every effort is being made to ensure that no farmer is left behind and that all produce is procured without any problem. Meanwhile, the police imposed restrictions on Jagan's visit, permitting only 500 people inside the market and 30 at the helipad due to space limitations. However, YSRCP leaders have claimed that around 10,000 party workers are expected to attend the event and have urged the police to make necessary arrangements accordingly.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Even the first citizen is answerable under the RTI Act!
A Telugu phrase says: 'Darina poye daanayya' (anybody who walks in the street). According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' is an idiom that refers to ordinary people, anyone, or everybody. It's often used to indicate that something is not exclusive and is available to or intended for the general public. The question is: whether a citizen can ask for information from the President of India under the Right to Information Act? Who is a citizen? Should one prove his or her citizenship and if so how? Even a passport is not proof of citizenship, according to the Union Home Minister. This writer also does not have proof of citizenship. Under the Right to Information, a PIO (Public Information Officer), who is supposed to provide information, cannot demand proof of citizenship. Can the PIO prove whether he has citizenship? If a PIO asks for citizenship proof, it means he has denied an individual of RTI. Under the RTI Act, he is liable to pay a Rs 25000 penalty. In this case the question was sent to the President; it is the story of the RTI question. How the RTI gave the 'details' of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, former President, is very interesting, as explained by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. One Subhash Chandra Agrawal had on August 9, 2010, filed a petition under RTI. Shailesh explained: The institutions of democracy had not become robust enough to withstand an assault, and it is imperative for citizens to know the reasons why and how democracy in India was nearly lost. He allowed an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and under-secretary at the President's Secretariat to provide the complete information on the declaration of internal emergency by the then president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Gandhi said, 'The Commission cannot pass any direction in this regard, as it does not come within the Commission's powers as mandated under the RTI Act. Now that various functionaries like ministers, judges, and Information Commissioners have voluntarily put up details of their assets on websites, it is for the President to take a decision on this matter. The PIO's reply was therefore correct.' The PIO also stated that the issue of whether exchanges between the President of India and the Prime Minister can be revealed under the RTI Act was the subject matter of a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision in the SR Bommai & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 1918), discussed the meaning and scope of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, as regards Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: '… Then comes Clause (2) of Article 74 which says that the question 'whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court.' The idea behind Clause (2) is this: the Court is not to enquire—it is not concerned with—whether any advice was tendered by any Minister or Council of Ministers to the President, and if so, what was that advice. That is a matter between the President and his Council of Ministers. What advice was tendered, whether it was required to be reconsidered, what advice was tendered after reconsideration, if any, what was the opinion of the President, whether the advice was changed pursuant to further discussion, if any, and how the ultimate decision was arrived at, are all matters between the President and his Council of Ministers. They are beyond the ken of the Court. The Court is not to go into it. It is enough that there is an order/act of the President in appropriate form. It will take it as the order/act of the President. It is concerned only with the validity of the order and legality of the proceeding or action taken by the President in exercise of his functions and not with what happened in the inner Councils of the President and his Ministers. No one can challenge such decision or action on the ground that it is not in accordance with the advice tendered by the Ministers or that it is based on no advice. If, in a given case, the President acts without, or contrary to, the advice tendered to him, it may be a case warranting his impeachment, but so far as the Court is concerned, it is the act of the President…' (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court ruled that this obligation could not be evaded by seeking refuge under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, clearly laid down in SR Bommai that Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India merely barred an enquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the council of ministers to the president. It did not bar the court from calling upon the council of ministers to disclose to the court the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered did not become a part of the advice. Even if the material was looked into by, or shown, to the president, it did not take the character of advice. 'Given that the advice tendered by the council of ministers to the president enjoys the Constitutional protection of Article 74(2) and cannot be disclosed to the courts, a citizen under the RTI Act cannot seek information pertaining to such advice. However, the Supreme Court has held that the materials on the basis of which such advice is tendered by the council of ministers or on the basis of which the president forms the requisite satisfaction is not covered by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 74(2) does not cover such material, it can be accessed under the RTI Act, subject only to the exemptions under the RTI Act.' He wrote in the Second Appeal 'complete and detailed information on all documents/ records/ deliberations/ correspondence/ file notings on declaration of internal emergency in the country by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the then president is not barred from disclosure under Article 74 of the Constitution of India; only the advice received by the then president from the then prime minister is protected from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India (in line with the ruling in SR Bommai) and therefore cannot be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act.' It was based on and the report of Moneylife on the website. 18 June 2013. Being a former President, he committed a serious blunder. How can such a Constitutional wrong be repaired by a Right to Information petition? The people of India need to answer! (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
BJP MP's ‘enter Bihar-UP' dare to Thackerays triggers row
Guwahati/Mumbai: BJP 's Jharkhand MP Nishikant Dubey targeted Uddhav and Raj Thackeray on Monday over the Hindi row and attacks on non-Marathi speakers, saying if the Thackerays go to Bihar, UP or TN, they will be "thrashed repeatedly" ("tumko patak patak ke maarenge"). Dubey added, "You people (Maharashtra) are surviving on our money. What kind of industries do you have? If you are brave enough to beat up Hindi speakers, you should also beat up those who speak Urdu, Tamil, and Telugu." His remarks drew criticism from the Thackerays & state minister from BJP Ashish Shelar. tnn & agencies Criticising BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's comments on Thackerays, state minister Ashish Shelar said no one should question the work done by the Marathi population. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai While Uddhav Thackeray referred to Dubey as a "hyena" and Aaditya said the comments were "straight out of BJP's playbook to create controversies when there are none, and divide and rule", Shelar said in the legislative assembly, "Some MP from Jharkhand has made comments about the work of Marathi people. I won't name him. The Mahayuti and BJP are very clear that the MP can say anything that fits in the law but must not question the deeds of Marathi people. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The whole nation knows our contribution to GDP, we made the first film in the country and also the first navy in the country. So no one can question the contribution of the Marathi manoos. Marathi people don't live on alms given by anyone." Shelar said he wasn't naming the MP as he wasn't a member of the assembly and was not present in the House. "If you are such a big 'boss', come out of Maharashtra," Dubey dared the Thackerays. "We all respect Marathi and the people of Maharashtra, who fought for India's independence," Dubey told agencies, but accused Raj and Uddhav of playing politics ahead of BMC elections. "The BMC election is due, hence Raj and Uddhav are doing cheap politics. If they have courage, they should go to Mahim and beat any Hindi or Urdu-speaking people in front of Mahim dargah," he said. Earlier, in a post on X on Sunday, Dubey had written, "Those who beat Hindi-speaking people in Mumbai, if you have the guts, try beating Urdu-speaking people in Maharashtra. Even a dog becomes a lion in its own house, right? Decide for yourself who is the dog and who is the lion." Aaditya Thackeray said, "Dubey is not the face of north Indians. He represents the BJP. These remarks were made with a political intent to divide Marathi and Hindi-speaking people." He said people from different states come to Maharashtra to fulfil their dreams and are living amicably. "They do their business here happily. But some elements want Maharashtra to burn for their selfish political agendas," he alleged. He said the Shiv Sena (UBT) was not against the Hindi language but against the move to impose the language on Maharashtra. Dubey's remarks also drew sharp reactions from Borivli BJP MLA Sanjay Upadhyay and NCP (SP)'s Rohit Pawar. "Making statements against Marathi language or culture is condemnable," Upadhyay said. Pawar accused Dubey of "focusing on Bihar elections and trying to create a Hindu-Muslim division."
