Would you let your kids sleep on floor?: Andhra HC raps officials over poor conditions in hostels
The court, hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kakinada resident Keethineedi Akhil Sriguru Teja in 2023, criticised the lack of regular inspections by district-level officials and the deplorable conditions in these hostels.
The court questioned how officials could remain unaware of the dire situation in hostels and demanded accountability for the crores of rupees allocated annually for their maintenance. 'Are works being carried out solely for the benefit of contractors?' it enquired.
The bench expressed dismay over the absence of basic facilities like beds, forcing students to sleep on the floor, and rhetorically asked if officials would allow their children to endure such conditions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Chief Secretary Over Goalpara Demolition Drive
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea seeking contempt action against the Assam Chief Secretary and other officials for allegedly conducting a mass eviction and demolition drive in Goalpara's Hasila Beel in violation of the apex court guidelines. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, sought responses of Chief Secretary Ravi Kota, Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, Goalpara's District Commissioner Khanindra Choudhury, Goalpara's Superintendent of Police Nabaneet Mahanta, and other officials in the matter. "Issue notice, returnable in two weeks. [P]ersonal presence of the alleged contemnnor(s) is dispensed with, until further orders," ordered the Bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran. As per the plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, no sufficient time or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in an "arbitrary and high-handed manner" a notice was issued to remove their houses, structures, shops, buildings and crops within two days. "The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise." The petitioners, claiming to be landless, said that their forefathers had to settle in the Hasila Beel revenue village of Balijana Revenue Circle about 50 to 60 years ago after losing their houses and land due to the riverbank erosion of the river Brahmaputra. The plea said that the eviction and demolition exercise was carried out without granting a personal hearing and without providing adequate time for appeal or judicial review, in blatant violation of the guidelines issued in the case titled "In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures". In November last year, a bench of then Justice Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan laid down pan-India directives governing demolitions of unauthorised structures. The top court had cautioned that flouting its directions by state authorities will result in criminal contempt and prosecution. Issuing a slew of directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court said that no demolition will be carried out without a prior show-cause notice. It added that the demolition order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days and will be displayed on a designated digital portal to be maintained by every municipal and local authority. The Supreme Court had clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place, such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC orders status quo on merger of schools in Sitapur till Aug 21
In an important judgment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday ordered to maintain the status quo on the merger of primary schools in Sitapur district and also pointed out that the interim order has nothing to do with the merit of the state government's policy and its implementation. The court has fixed the next hearing of the case on August 21. The high court passed the order only for Sitapur district after it noticed certain glaring discrepancies with respect to merger of schools there during hearing of the case. (For Representation) The high court passed the order only for Sitapur district after it noticed certain glaring discrepancies with respect to merger of schools there during hearing of the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order on two petitions—one by 5 children and the other by 17 children from Sitapur district through their parents. The petitioners had sought a stay on the July 7 order of the single judge bench of the high court which dismissed the petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for merger of primary schools run by the basic education department of the state government. 'We make it clear that at this point of time the grant of interim order has nothing to do with the merit of the policy and its implementation as such,' the court said. Senior advocate LP Mishra and advocate Gaurav Mehrotra argued on behalf of the petitioners, whereas additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh argued on behalf of the state government. During the hearing, irregularities came to the fore in some documents of merger presented by the state government. They came to light when reference to the documents produced before the single judge bench (which dismissed the petitions against merger on July 7) was made. The court noticed certain discrepancies and pointed them out to the additional advocate general. In view of this, the court ordered to maintain the status quo on the merger process of primary schools in Sitapur district. Mishra argued that the state government's order to merge schools violates the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act for children aged 6-14. He also raised concerns that the merger would create problems for young children as they would have to travel long distances to attend school. The government counsel apprised the court of such primary schools those have zero students. They also informed the court about primary schools where the strength of students was fewer than 15. Defending the merger of primary schools, the government counsel pointed out that it was in the larger interest of students. They said there will be more social activity and scope for development for a student who is relocated from a school having a few students to a school having 300 students.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Every SC/ST complaint must lead to registration of FIR without any preliminary inquiry, orders Madras High Court
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court has held the police cannot conduct preliminary inquiry on receipt of complaints disclosing cognisable offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and that the law enforcing agency should straightaway register First Information Reports (FIRs) against the suspects. Justice P. Velmiurugan highlighted that Section 18A(1)(a), introduced by way of an amendment in 2018, of the Act categorically states that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registration of FIR against any person. 'The legislative intent is to ensure immediate and unfiltered registration of complaints alleging caste based atrocities, without procedural obstructions or administrative discretion,' he said. The judge agreed with advocate R. Thirumoorthy that the police often do not follow the legal mandate. Therefore, he directed the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF) to communicate a copy of his order to all Commissioners as well as Superintendents of Police in the State in order to avoid infraction of the legal requirement as far as SC/ST cases were concerned. The judge said, in several cases, he had been coming across instances of preliminary inquiries being conducted in SC/ST cases and such inquiries being conducted by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) though Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, mandates investigation in SC/ST cases to be conducted by police officers not below the rank of DSP. Stating procedural lapses should not recur in the future, the judge made it clear investigation in SC/ST cases must be completed and final reports/charge sheets must be filed before the special courts within 60 days, from the date of registration of FIR, as mandated under Rule 7(2) of the 1994 Rules. He insisted upon time bound filing of final reports in all cases booked under the SC/ST Act. Justice Velmurugan also ordered that judicial magistrates could not take cognisance of private complaints seeking a direction to the police to register FIRs under the SC/ST Act and that such complaints must be forwarded to the special courts constituted under Section 14 of the Act. He pointed out that the judicial magistrates lacked the jurisdiction to take cognisance of such private complaints. The orders were passed on a petition filed by Muniraj, a disabled person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. He had filed a private complaint before a judicial magistrate in Krishnagiri district and obtained a direction to the Hosur Town police in August 2024 to inquire into his complaint against a few individuals who were reportedly attempting to usurp his immovable property and had also abused him using caste slurs. He had approached the High Court accusing the Hosur Town Police Station Inspector of not having inquired into his complaint properly despite a judicial direction. However, after holding that the direction issued by the judicial magistrate was not valid in the eye of law, Justice Velmurugan directed the Krishnagiri Superintendent of Police to ensure that a FIR was registered based on the petitioner's complaint. The judge also said, the Superintendent of Police could conduct the investigation either by himself or entrust it to an officer not below the rank of DSP who, in turn, must file a final report within 60 days.
