Latest news with #SC
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Suicides in educational institutions: SC issues pan-India guidelines
New Delhi, Outlining the rise in suicides and mental health issues among students in educational institutions, the Supreme Court on Friday issued pan-India guidelines to combat the problem. Suicides in educational institutions: SC issues pan-India guidelines A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said there remained a "legislative and regulatory vacuum" in the country with respect to a unified, enforceable framework for suicide prevention of students in educational institutions, coaching centres, and student-centric environments. While issuing 15 guidelines, the bench said the measures should remain in force and binding, until such time as appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks were enacted by the competent authority. All educational institutions were directed to adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, drawing cues from the "Ummeed" draft guidelines, the "Manodarpan" initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. "This policy shall be reviewed and updated annually and made publicly accessible on institutional websites and notice boards of the institutes," the bench said. The top court highlighted Centre's preventive steps to mitigate the situation, with "Ummeed" draft guidelines meant to prevent school student suicides released by the Ministry of Education in 2023. For a broader reach, the court said, the Ministry of Education launched "Manodarpan", mental health and well-being of students during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. The verdict came on an appeal against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, rejecting the plea to transfer the investigation over the unnatural death of a 17-year-old National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test aspirant, preparing in Vishakhapatnam, to the CBI. Passing a slew of guidelines, the bench said all educational institutions with 100 or more enrolled students should either appoint or engage at least one qualified counsellor, psychologist, or social worker with demonstrable training in child and adolescent mental health. "Institutions with fewer students shall establish formal referral linkages with external mental health professionals," the verdict said. The bench continued, "All residential-based institutions shall install tamper-proof ceiling fans or equivalent safety devices, and shall restrict access to rooftops, balconies, and other high-risk areas, in order to deter impulsive acts of self-harm." All educational institutions, particularly coaching institutes or centres, were asked to refrain from segregating students' batches on the basis of academic performance, public shaming, or assignment of academic targets disproportionate to their capacities. "All educational institutions shall establish robust, confidential, and accessible mechanisms for the reporting, redressal, and prevention of incidents involving sexual assault, harassment, ragging, and bullying on the basis of caste, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or ethnicity," the order said. The bench stressed on the need for zero tolerance when it came to retaliatory actions against complainants or whistle-blowers. In all such cases, immediate referral to trained mental health professionals must be ensured, and the student's safety, physical and psychological, should be prioritised, it said. "Failure to take timely or adequate action in such cases, especially where such neglect contributes to a student's self-harm or suicide, shall be treated as institutional culpability, making the administration liable to regulatory and legal consequences," the bench added. All coaching hubs, including Jaipur, Kota, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi and Mumbai, were directed to implement heightened mental health protection and preventive measures. The guidelines would apply to all educational institutions, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation. The top court in a separate case took cognisance of suicides in educational institutions and directed the constitution of a National Task Force on mental health concerns of students and prevention of suicides in higher educational institutions. "We may clarify that these guidelines are not in supersession but in parallel to the ongoing work of the National Task Force on mental health concerns of students and are being issued to provide an interim protective architecture in the interregnum," the bench clarified. All states and union territories, as far as practicable, were directed to notify rules within two months mandating registration, student protection norms, and grievance redressal mechanisms for all private coaching centres. The bench directed the Centre to file a compliance affidavit before it within 90 days detailing the steps taken to implement these guidelines and the monitoring systems put in place. It posted the matter for October 27 for receiving the compliance report. Dealing with the unnatural death case, the bench directed that the investigation shall be transferred to the CBI. The CBI director was ordered to ensure immediate registration of case and the investigation being assigned to a team under the supervision of jurisdictional CBI superintendent. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Congress manifesto is biggest lie of the century as it had betrayed all sections of society: KTR
HYDERABAD Working president of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) K.T. Rama Rao has observed that the Congress manifesto is the biggest lie of the century as the party had betrayed every section of the Telangana society with it. Speaking at the 'Dalit Atmagourava Sabha' held at Lingampet in Yellareddy constituency of Kamareddy district on Friday, he said the Congress did not even spare dalit and tribal communities as it had failed to implement the SC, ST Declaration announced by AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge after coming to power. He said Statehood to Telangana had become possible only with the help of Article 3 of the Constitution scripted by a team led by B.R. Ambedkar. It was with the spirit of that provision BRS president K. Chandrasekhar Rao had mobilised people for the Statehood movement and achieved it after 14 years of struggle. He stated that KCR was the only Chief Minister who had named the Secretariat after Dr. Ambedkar and got a 125-feet tall statue of Ambedkar installed for the first time in the country. Mr. Rama Rao pointed out that the Revanth Reddy government was unable to provide basic quality food to students of the residential educational institutions, while he spent ₹1.35 lakh for one plate of meal during his visit to Vemulawada. The neglect of these institutions had already resulted in the death of over 100 students over the last 20 months. During the BRS regime, the institutions were transformed into high-standard places of learning under the leadership of R.S. Praveen Kumar. Besides, Mr. Revanth Reddy had promised to increase the Dalit Bandhu assistance amount to ₹12 lakh from ₹10 lakh, if voted to power, but he had disbanded it completely. He had also promised 26% of all government contractual works to SC, ST communities and ₹6 lakh assistance for construction of house, but they were not kept so far. He also listed out all other welfare benefits, which were promised with enhanced amount but in vain. Party leaders V. Prashanth Reddy, Gampa Goverdhan, Bajireddy Goverdhan, R.S. Praveen Kumar, Deshapathi Srinivas and others participated. Mr. Rama Rao felicitated M. Sayilu, who was insulted by the police at the birth anniversary event of Dr. Ambedkar earlier this year.
News18
3 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Important cases heard by Supreme Court on July 25
Important cases heard by the Supreme Court on Friday, Jul 25: * Outlining the rise in suicides and mental health issues among students in educational institutions, SC issued pan-India guidelines to combat the problem. * SC extended the stay on the criminal proceedings against senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal case lodged in Uttar Pradesh for his comments against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 2022. * SC directed the Delhi HC to hear on July 28 the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release 'Udaipur Files – Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". * SC dismissed a plea for conducting delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for increasing the assembly seats in both the states. * SC allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. * SC rapped a Kerala-based journalist for allegedly publishing a defamatory video against a prominent woman politician on his YouTube channel 'Crime Online". * SC said the rehabilitation of homeless persons suffering from psychosocial disabilities was a sensitive issue and directed the Centre to take it up 'very seriously". * SC sought responses from the Uttarakhand government and its public services commission on a plea challenging exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability from taking up judicial services examination. * SC said it was worried whether deer from Deer Park in Delhi's Hauz Khas were tranquillised before being transported to Rajasthan. PTI ABA HIG view comments First Published: July 25, 2025, 19:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Senators split on SC decision vs. Sara Duterte impeachment
Senators on Friday aired contrasting opinions on the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Senator Risa Hontiveros was dismayed by the high court's decision, saying that there are 'many disturbing questions' about its short-term and long-term consequences. Citing the SC's decision on Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives, Hontiveros questioned how the one-year bar rule was violated, pointing out that the SC had explained that the consideration behind that "refers to the element of time, and not the number of complaints." 'Bukod pa, nakakabahala na tila nagdagdag ng napakaraming requirement ang Korte Suprema para simulan ang proseso ng impeachment. I can only hope that this new ruling will not adversely affect future efforts to hold our highest public officers accountable,' she said. (Aside from that, it is troubling how the Supreme Court seemingly added too many requirements to start the impeachment process.) 'Malinaw pa rin ang Saligang Batas - public office is a public trust - at walang opisyal ang may karapatan sa posisyon. Lahat ng opisyal ng bayan ay may pananagutan sa bawat Pilipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. Ipaglalaban namin ito,' she added. (The Constitution is still clear - public office is a public trust - and no official has a right to the position. All public officials are responsible to every Filipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. We will fight for this.) The SC has ruled unanimously, deeming that the articles of impeachment against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. The SC also said that the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The high court, however, said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint against her may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. In response, Senator Bam Aquino maintained that the impeachment trial should proceed as he called on fellow senators to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the decision, which he said 'ignored' the Senate's constitutional duty. 'Bilang co-equal branch, malinaw ang mandato ng konstitusyon at kapangyarihan ng senado, kaya nararapat na i-respesto ang proseso ng impeachment,' Aquino said. (As a co-equal branch, the constitutional mandate and power of the Senate are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected.) Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan also believed that the SC seemingly set aside the legal principle of the presumption of regularity of the acts of a co-equal branch of government. 'Sa ngayon nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema at kailangan igalang ito. Mapapaisip na lang tayo kung ganito pa rin ba ang magiging pasya ng SC kung sinunod ng Senado ang mandato ng Saligang Batas na 'to forthwith proceed with trial' gayong wala naman restraining order na inilabas yung SC nung inihain yung petisyon noong pang Pebrero' Pangilinan said. (So far the Supreme Court has spoken and it must be respected. We can only wonder if the SC's decision would still be the same if the Senate had followed the mandate of the Constitution to 'proceed with trial' even though there was no restraining order issued by the SC when the petition was filed in February.) Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that: 'In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.' 'Duty-bound' Meanwhile, Senator Joel Villanueva said that the Senate remains guided by its duty to uphold the rule of law and respect due process. 'As an impeachment court and as a legislative body, we remain committed to following the Constitution and established procedures and will continue to do so,' he said. Senator Imee Marcos also said that the decision of the Supreme Court should be respected. 'Sa mga kasamahan kong senador —trabaho na tayo! Wag na mamulitika!' (To my fellow senators, let us now work and stop politicking.) Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, for his part, said that he is still studying the SC decision and is seeking advice on the matter. 'Being a member of the impeachment court, I would rather hear what the [House of Representatives] has to say. I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,' Sotto said. Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada also said he expects the Senate to take a collective stand by acceding to the high court's decision once the 20th Congress opens on July 28, Monday. 'Nonetheless, I welcome this decision, which serves as a vital reminder that all efforts to hold public officials accountable must be firmly grounded in legality and due process,' Estrada said. 'As a co-equal branch of government, we must abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even in a political process like impeachment proceedings, we must adhere to established procedures and due process to ensure that our actions are neither arbitrary nor solely driven by political agendas,' he added. Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa also expressed belief that the SC was 'guided by the Holy Spirit' when it made the decision. 'When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I'm sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!' Dela Rosa said. To recall, when the Senate impeachment court first convened on June 10, Dela Rosa made a motion in the Senate plenary seeking that the verified impeachment complaint against Duterte be dismissed. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano later that day moved to amend Dela Rosa's motion to instead have the articles of impeachment returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the case. The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, meanwhile, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC issues notice to U'khand on plea of blind judicial services exam aspirant
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Uttarakhand government and its public services commission on a plea challenging exclusion of persons with blindness and locomotor disability from taking up judicial services examination. SC issues notice to U'khand on plea of blind judicial services exam aspirant A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan issued fresh notices to the state, the services commission and the registrar general of the Uttarakhand High Court on Sravya Sindhuri's plea. The bench was informed that the petitioner, who is completely blind, challenged the exclusion of the blind, and those with locomotor disability from being eligible for the judicial exams. "That is very bad, very bad on the part of the government,' Justice Pardiwala asked. The bench issued the notice to the state considering the examination was scheduled to begin on August 31 and none appeared despite previous notices. The top court on March 3 delivered a landmark judgement in a similar case and held blind persons cannot be denied opportunity of employment in judicial services, as it struck down provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules that excluded them. "It is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognised in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability," it said. The plea, on which the top court issued the notices on Friday, alleged the recruitment advertisement of May 16 violated constitutional rights and statutory provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act Act. The petition also challenged the restriction of PwBD eligibility to only four specific categories: leprosy cured, acid attack victims, muscular dystrophy, and dwarfism, and consequential exclusion of several other benchmark disabilities such as blindness and locomotor disability. The petitioner's counsel submitted the recruitment notification not only unlawfully restricted eligibility but also imposed a domicile requirement, disqualifying persons with benchmark disabilities who are not residents of Uttarakhand. The advertisement was alleged to be contrary to Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates 4 per cent reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in government establishments, with 1 per cent specifically for blindness and low vision and another 1 per cent for locomotor disabilities. It sought quashing of the advertisement to the extent it excludes non-domiciled PwBD candidates and restricts eligibility to only four sub-categories. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
