SHRESHTA schools demand illegal fees from students, says Social Justice Ministry
Image by canva (Representational)
The Social Justice Ministry has found that numerous schools operating under its SHRESHTA program, which was created to give Scheduled Caste students access to high school education, are requesting "deposits" from parents and students under a variety of guises, which is against the program's rules, which were intended to give beneficiaries access to high-quality free education.
The Social Justice Ministry issued a letter to the schools on Monday, stating: 'Regrettably, we have received numerous complaints from students and parents regarding schools demanding deposits under various pretexts such as admission fees, uniforms, books, medical expenses, security deposits, picnic fees and stationery costs.'
SC students in the target areas are to receive residential high school education through the Scheme for Residential Education for Students in High Schools in Targeted Areas (SHRESHTA), the Hindu reported on Monday. The programme reportedly has two modes: one that allows private residential schools to join, and the other that permits residential schools run by NGOs and voluntary organisations. The official statement further warned that no fees should not be charged from SHRESHTHA students. "Failure to comply will result in strict actions being taken against the school through the CBSE, ' it reportedly added.
As per data released by the Ministry of Social Justice, the SHRESHTA scheme benefits approximately 15,000 Scheduled Caste (SC) students through both of its operational modes. Of these, more than 5,000 students are currently enrolled in private residential schools under Mode-1 of the scheme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Custodial torture cannot be considered police duty: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that police officers accused of custodial torture cannot be exonerated solely due to the absence of government sanction, reported Bar and Bench. Justice Kauser Edappagath made these remarks while hearing a revision petition filed by a woman named Sudha, who had previously worked as a housemaid. She was accused by her employers of stealing gold sovereigns and was subsequently taken to the police station, where she alleged she was subjected to custodial torture, the report added. She was beaten and tortured by police officers for over three hours before her employers admitted the missing gold had been found at home. Sudha later filed a private complaint before a Magistrate Court, which found enough grounds to proceed against both the employers and the police under various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, a sessions court discharged all the accused—citing lack of prima facie evidence against the employers and absence of prior sanction to prosecute the police—prompting Sudha to challenge the decision in the High Court through a revision petition. Custodial torture not protected under CrPC The High Court noted that custodial torture cannot be considered part of the official duties of the police. Therefore, it should not be shielded by legal provisions requiring prior government sanction for prosecution. 'The act of custodial torture inflicted by a police officer without justification on an arrestee cannot be shielded under the protective mantle of Section 197 of CrPC,' the judgment stated. 'It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee.' Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates prior government approval before prosecuting public servants for actions committed in the course of their official duties. 'Worst kind of violence' The court also noted that custodial torture represents a grave violation in any society governed by the rule of law. Highlighting the broader implications, the judgment stated: "The courts must not lose sight of the fact that custodial torture is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees/undertrial prisoners or suspects tarnish the image of any civilised nation and encourage the men in 'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves," as quoted by Bar and Bench. It further urged the court to deal with such in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity that they deserve. "Otherwise, the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself," it noted. Normalisation of torture within police forces A recent study revealed that a significant proportion of police personnel in India view the use of physical force during interrogation as justified. According to the Status of Policing in India Report 2025 by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, over half of police personnel surveyed believe it is important to use tough methods, including violence, to instil fear among criminals. Around 30 per cent justify the use of third-degree torture in serious cases. It also highlighted that 22 per cent of police personnel believe that killing 'dangerous criminals' is better than giving them a legal trial. Many officers surveyed held the view that methods such as beatings were effective in extracting confessions or maintaining order. The study also indicated that a considerable number of officers did not see the use of torture as a violation of human rights.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC says no order issued as it declines urgent listing in Udaipur Files case
The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that it has not issued any order in connection with the release of the Udaipur Files movie, stating that it had merely declined an urgent listing of the matter on Wednesday, LiveLaw reported. The clarification follows a query by the Delhi High Court, which had asked the parties to clarify the apex court's observations in proceedings related to the film's release. Kapil Sibal raises Delhi HC concern over SC's oral observation Appearing for the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Sibal said the Delhi High Court was hesitant to pass an order on the Jamiat's petition due to media reports suggesting the Supreme Court had refused to intervene. 'I filed the petition before the Delhi High Court. The HC Chief Justice asked me if there was a matter pending here. That has not even been heard or listed. Oral observation made by your lordship,' Sibal told the Supreme Court bench. Background: The Kanhaiya Lal murder and the film's controversy Udaipur Files is a movie based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor who was killed in Udaipur in June 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. Soon after the attack, the assailants released a video claiming responsibility, saying the murder was in retaliation for a social media post Lal had shared in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who had made controversial remarks about Prophet Mohammed. SC earlier declined urgent listing of plea to stop film On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had declined to urgently list a plea challenging the release of the film. During the brief hearing, the court had orally remarked, 'Let the film be released.' The comment came after a lawyer representing one of the accused in the murder case argued that the film's release could prejudice the ongoing trial. Delhi HC seeks clarification, directs screening for petitioners In light of the Supreme Court's oral remarks, the Delhi High Court on Thursday asked advocates whether the apex court had explicitly permitted the release. 'In newspapers, we saw the matter was in SC, which was refused, saying 'let the screening go on',' the High Court bench noted. Notably, the SC's order and the High Court's interim directive were both issued on Wednesday. The Delhi High Court had directed the producer of Udaipur Files to arrange a private screening for those seeking a ban. Film release on July 11; Delhi HC petition on communal content pending The film is scheduled to be released in theatres on July 11. The Delhi High Court is hearing a separate petition by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking to stop the release on grounds that the film is allegedly communally provocative. (with inputs from PTI)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
'Why not Aadhaar?': Citizenship proof a key point as SC hears pleas against Bihar voter revision
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission why Aadhaar was not being accepted as proof of citizenship in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar, which goes to polls in October-November. At one point a judge on the bench remarked that even he could not show all the documents mandated, especially in the short timeline set. Election officials handing over enumeration forms to voters ahead of the Bihar assembly elections 2025 due in October-November.(X/@CEOBihar) The questions of citizenship and Aadhaar as proof came up after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that even though Aadhaar is an acceptable document as per the Representation of Peoples Act, the poll panel is not considering it valid for the Bihar SIR. At this, the SC bench asked the EC why. The EC's lawyer, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, told the court: 'Aadhar Card cannot be used as proof of citizenship.' Also read: 'Half of Bihar could lose voting rights' Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked: "… citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs)." The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Dhulia and Justice Joymala Bagchi. The EC lawyer cited Article 326 of the Constitution to say the poll panel has the powers to check for citizenship for voting rights. Also read: Supreme Court questions timing of Bihar voter list revision The SC bench then questioned the timing of the exercise, which began late June. The bench observed that if the EC decided to take away the voting right, then that person has to appeal against the decision and 'go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election'. 'If you ask me for these documents…' 'Suppose I want a caste certificate… I show my Aadhaar card [and] I get a caste certificate based on that. So that is a document (caste certificate) accepted (for SIR) but not Aadhaar,' the bench remarked. When the EC's lawyer cited a relevant act to say Aadhaar could not be used as citizenship proof or domicile, the court said multiple laws had to be read together for complete understanding. On why 11 documents were being asked for, the EC said that Aadhaar is a proof of identity, while citizenship needed to be proved with a set of documents. Amid this argument, Justice Dhulia remarked: 'If you ask me for these documents, I myself cannot show you all these. Then with all your timelines... I am telling you the issues on the ground.' The question came back to the quick pace of the exercise. Just ahead of 2025 Bihar polls While the court observed 'nothing wrong in purging electoral rolls through an intensive exercise in order to see that non-citizens don't remain on the role,' it made a rhetorical remark too, 'But if you decide only a couple of months before a proposed election…' Justice Bagchi also said, 'My question is, why to link this process to an incoming election at all?' At this the EC lawyer insisted that no one would be deleted 'without notice or being heard', Live Law reported. Taking a break after this, the court summed up a part of the proceedings by asking three questions for the EC: one, about the EC's very authority to conduct a 'special intensive revision'; two, about the valid procedure, including what it can ask for; and then the timing of the exercise, just months ahead of the assembly polls. The hearing saw other key questions being raised, too, such as the importance of voter revision since the last one was carried out in 2003. Earlier, the petitioners against the 'intensive' exercise argued that it is wholly "arbitrary" and "discriminative". They pointed out in their pleas too, that the SIR makes voters who have been on the list for years also to re-verify themselves, and in some cases even their parents. Opposition politicians, some of whom are among the petitioners, have criticised the timing in particular. The hearing comes after the SC refused to immediately stay the SIR. What is the core challenge to Bihar SIR? Transparency group ADR and Swaraj Party's Yogendra Yadav have cited Article 32 of the Constitution while challenging the EC's notification. TMC MP Mahua Moitra is also among the petitioners. Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi are among the top lawyers leading the challenge. The petitions note that the identification process shifts the 'burden of proof' onto individual citizens, requiring fresh applications and documentary evidence of citizenship by July 25, 2025. Their argument is that given Bihar's high rates of migration and pvoerty, such requirements for documents dating back decades can disenfranchise millions. Political parties, particularly the Congress, RJD and those in opposition to the ruling BJP in Bihar, have alleged this could remove a large number of eligible people. Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav from Congress and RJD, respectively, held a protest against the exercise with a 'Bihar Bandh' call on Wednesday.
