Parents seek swift implementation of fee regulation Bill in Telangana
While the proposed Bill suggests formation of parent-teacher committees, parents' associations feel that there is a need for a statutory system and that officials from the Education department too should be included in these panels. Photo | Express illustrations
HYDERABAD: There seems to be no end to suggestions for and objections to the proposed Bill, drafted by the Telangana Education Commission, to regulate and monitor fee structure in private schools and junior colleges.
While the proposed Bill suggests formation of parent-teacher committees, parents' associations feel that there is a need for a statutory system and that officials from the Education department too should be included in these panels.
Expressing concern that no fee regulations are in place in the current academic year even though the draft Bill was submitted to the government way back in January, the members of Hyderabad Schools Parents Association are of the opinion it should be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that the new rules come into effect at the start of next academic year.
They also suggested that the Commission come up with a proper fee hike percentage along with duration — for instance a 5% annual fee increase once in every three or five years after approval from the Fee Regulation & Monitoring Commission — as this is not mentioned in the proposed Bill.
Kishore, a member of HSPA, said: 'We want the draft Bill to be implemented but we had a meeting with subcommittee members only once. After that the state government seems to have forgotten about it. During that meeting, we suggested that the Commission provide clarity on how much annual fee should be increased and in how many years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
P B Mehta writes: In Bihar, now, prove your identity
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is becoming a travesty. It is hard to disagree with the formal objective of the exercise: No eligible voter should be excluded, and no ineligible person should be included. But this reasonable aim is being transformed into a bureaucratic dystopia that threatens the rights of ordinary voters. The last intensive revision of electoral rolls was carried out in 2003. Now, the Commission announces a special revision just weeks before an election — on the heels of a special summary revision that involved extensive surveys barely six months ago, with an updated list published as recently as January. Yet voters are now required to furnish documentary proof of citizenship from a list of 11 prescribed documents — most of which they are unlikely to possess. This demand is unprecedented in the history of electoral roll creation. The new documentation requirements are not just onerous, they are bewilderingly complex. Those whose names appeared in the 2003 rolls may furnish an extract as proof. But others face steeper hurdles. Those born before 1987 must provide a document with place and date of birth. Those born between 1987 and 2004 must produce a document with their parents' date of birth and one of 11 documents proving their own place and date of birth. Those born after 2004 must go further, furnishing proof of both parents' date and place of birth in addition to their own. This process places an extraordinary burden on the citizen and risks mass disenfranchisement. The logic of the order is perverse: Every principle turns into its opposite. The Commission boasts of giving voters a choice among 11 documents — what liberty! But this liberty is hollow. The Commission refuses to recognise the documents most citizens actually have — like Aadhaar or MGNREGA cards — while demanding documents that are beyond the reach of most. Even conservative estimates suggest that lakhs of voters could be excluded. Almost all the petitions against the order provide data on the minuscule number of citizens who possess all the relevant documents. And the arbitrariness is striking: Why should a family register carry more weight as proof of citizenship than, say, other excluded cards? Dissect the list of the 11 acceptable documents, and its social bias becomes evident. Most relate to education, government employment, or property rights — echoes of an era when suffrage was tied to privilege. This is not a direct return to educational or property-based qualifications, but the privileges conferred on the educated and propertied are stark. It is almost a throwback to the 19th century, when the privileges of the educated and propertied were taken for granted. In principle, the Election Commission allows for safeguards: Electoral registration officers (EROs) must conduct inquiries and provide a fair hearing before deletion. But these procedural protections, in context, can invert their meaning. They expose vulnerable citizens to local officials' discretion, particularly in a state like Bihar where administrative capacity is uneven. The time frame is implausibly short, and it is unrealistic to expect lakhs of inquiries to be conducted fairly and consistently. Even worse is the looming threat that the citizens flagged in this process could be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal. Is the appeals process a remedy — or merely another way to ensnare citizens in an opaque and hostile system? We need not speculate about the Commission's motives; they may well be honourable. Nor do we need to predict the political fallout of this move — it is often unpredictable. What matters is the potential effect: This exercise reveals the state's presumptuous character. It burdens citizens with the constant demand to prove their identity, as if they are forever on probation. The KYC (know your customer) mania has extended to voting: Proof must be furnished again and again, often under arbitrary or shifting standards. This formalism — articulating reasonable objectives while ignoring practical realities — inflicts real harm. It ignores the ground realities of documentation in India, particularly in poorer states. It overlooks how documentation requirements impose disproportionate burdens on the marginalised. The order also disrupts lives with its unreasonable timelines. On various estimates, about a tenth of the population of Bihar migrates out for work; floods severely affect families during this time of year. Even in the best of times, the state does not have the capacity to conduct these kinds of exercises in short order. This order replicates the disruptive logic of demonetisation, where the state asserts its power by inducing mass anxiety. Even if one accepts that an intensive revision is necessary, it cannot inspire public trust if announced suddenly, weeks before an election. If the Commission truly believes these exercises are essential, it should have evolved consistent and reasonable norms regarding format, documentation, and timing in consultation with political parties. Our bureaucracy has long had a penchant for placing citizens at the mercy of petty officials. It remains deaf to the claims raised by social movements around enfranchisement. To put it bluntly, this exercise appears to be a pilot for a backdoor NRC, introducing new and discriminatory documentation standards. This is not just about Bihar. Even if one believes an NRC is necessary, it must be carried out fairly, without fear, and only when the state has built the infrastructure and political conditions to support it. This has not happened. Instead, the burden of state failure is being shifted onto citizens. The state demands documentation it neither trusts nor has enabled people to obtain. We should be cautious in impugning constitutional authorities — their credibility is a precious resource. The courts also should not tread on other constitutional authorities lightly. But voting is so fundamental to our identity as citizens, and so constitutive of the republic, that the courts need to do the minimum necessary to ensure that such exercises are not just formally fair, but also fair in substance. But this initiative by the EC is ill-judged and ill-timed. It should be deferred until it can be executed credibly, with transparency, and without placing an undue burden on genuine citizens. The EC's order is, at the very least, an exercise in bureaucratic insensitivity and state overreach, and will erode trust in institutions. The task of the state is not to manufacture new sources of fear — it is to relieve citizens of their anxieties. The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
60 women to get party ticket in next Assembly polls: Revanth
Hyderabad: The Congress party will lead by example, while earmarking around 60 tickets to women in the next Assembly elections. This categorical assurance came from Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy after launching 'Vana Mahotsavam'2025 at the PJT Agriculture University here on Monday. He would personally take up this responsibility and ensure that the allotment goes beyond the quota for women. The Chief Minister indicated that approximately 50 seats would be reserved for women after delimitation of Assembly seats and passage of the women's reservation Bill. In addition, the party would pick women nominees in at least 10 more seats to ensure a larger women representation in the state Assembly. Reiterating that the government has set a target of making one crore woman millionaires, Revanth Reddy maintained that women SHGs would also be formed in urban areas in their bid to empower women across fields. Revanth Reddy listed out the women empowerment schemes formulated by his government, including the responsibility of setting up solar plants, focussing on government schools for girls and encouraging women to rent out around 1,000 buses to TGSRTC. Women's groups are now able to market their products in Hitec City, where some of the biggest MNCs and corporate houses are located. Meanwhile, urging people to join "Vana Mahotsavam" by planting at least two saplings in their homes, he called upon mothers to take the responsibility of planting saplings in the name of their children. The popular saying propounded by the older generations "the forest ecosystem and our living are integral" is eternally relevant, he pointed out. The Chief Minister said that Telangana will be transformed into a complete 'green' zone if everyone cultivates and nurtures trees like children.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
State drafts new bill to curb rising child marriages despite existing laws
Bengaluru: Alarmedby the rising incidence of child marriages in the state, the Karnataka government has drafted the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Bill, 2025, aiming to plug gaps in existing legislation and enforcement. Despite awareness campaigns and annual action plans, state data shows a worrying upward trend in child marriages. According to the Department of Women and Child Development, Karnataka recorded 2,165 child marriages between 2021 and 2025. Notably, 1,416 of these cases occurred in just the past two years—since the current Congress government assumed office. In 2024–25 alone, 700 child marriages were reported, alongside 3,049 complaints. Authorities claim they successfully prevented 2,349 planned marriages. Shivamogga district topped the list with 79 confirmed cases, followed by Belagavi (78), Chitradurga (74), Bagalkote and Mysuru (60 each), and Mandya (57).Chief Minister Siddaramaiah expressed serious concern during a review meeting with Deputy Commissioners and Zilla Panchayat CEOs on May 31. He reportedly reprimanded officials for failing to prevent the practice and instructed the Law Department to draft a bill targeting not only the act of child marriage but also its preparation and engagement arrangements. The bill has received initial approval from the Women and Child Development Minister and is now under legislative scrutiny before being tabled. The state's move comes as a critical intervention to address what officials describe as a persistent and deeply rooted social evil.
