Admissions halted at Prakashchandra Jain Colleges over irregularities, says Minister
Responding to a half-an-hour discussion raised under Rule 94 by MLA Vijay Shivtare, Mushrif said the concerns highlighted by legislators regarding the Sanstha's operations were 'grave in nature' and warrant immediate action. MLAs Amol Jawale, Mangesh Chavan, and Anup Agarwal also participated in the discussion.
'In light of the seriousness of the allegations and keeping in view the interests of the students already admitted, the admission process in all three colleges will be halted with immediate effect,' Mushrif said.
He further informed the House that a detailed inquiry would be conducted within seven days through the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), with additional investigations to be undertaken by the Directorate of Medical Education. 'Those found guilty will face criminal prosecution,' the minister added.
In a separate discussion, Minister of State for Women and Child Development Meghna Bordikar-Sakore assured the Assembly that the government will immediately implement the decision to waive educational fees for orphaned children.
The announcement came during a half-an-hour discussion under Rule 94 initiated by MLA Rais Shaikh, who raised the issue of fee exemptions and job reservations for orphaned children. MLAs Amol Jawale and Gopichand Padalkar also took part in the discussion.
'A new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be put in place for effective implementation of the Bal Sangopan Yojana to ensure eligible children receive the intended benefits,' Bordikar said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
Infighting, delayed seat talks affected MVA in polls: Uddhav
Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray said that delayed seat talks and 'ego-driven politics' affected the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance in last year's Maharashtra Assembly polls and warned that continued internal discord may render the coalition meaningless ahead of the civic polls in the state. In an interview to his party mouthpiece Saamana, Uddhav spoke about the infighting and delayed seat-sharing talks within the MVA, which comprises the Sena (UBT), Congress, and NCP (SP) led by Sharad Pawar. 'If mistakes like these are repeated, there is no point in staying together. Seat-sharing discussions dragged on until the very last minute, and candidate selection was left unresolved in several constituencies. The public received the wrong message,' the Sena UBT chief said. Uddhav said that despite MVA's stellar performance in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections—where the alliance bagged 30 out of 48 seats in Maharashtra—the momentum was squandered in the Assembly polls due to a shift from collective strategy to individual party ambitions. 'The enthusiasm turned into ego-driven politics,' he remarked. Uddhav further suggested that populist schemes announced by the ruling Mahayuti ahead of the Assembly polls, such as the Ladki Bahin scheme, and allegations of manipulation in electoral processes—ranging from questionable voter lists to concerns about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)—dented the MVA's prospects. 'These issues need to be investigated. But it's equally important to accept our own mistakes,' he added. Slamming the BJP and the Election Commission, Uddhav also reiterated that the 'Thackeray' name is not merely a political brand but a cultural identity rooted in Maharashtra's history. 'They can snatch our symbol or give it to someone else, but not the name built by my father and grandfather. The roots of our legacy lie deep in the Marathi soil,' Thackeray said, referring to the EC's decision to award the original Shiv Sena name and symbol to the Eknath Shinde- led party. He also took veiled jibes at the RSS and BJP, accusing them of attempting to hijack the 'Thackeray brand' despite having 'built nothing in 100 years.' Uddhav's remarks came around eight months after the MVA's dismal show in the Assembly polls, where the BJP-led Mahayuti—comprising the BJP, Shinde-led Shiv Sena, and Ajit Pawar's NCP—secured a landslide victory. The BJP emerged as the single largest party with 132 seats, while Shinde Sena bagged 57 and Ajit Pawar's NCP got 41 seats. The Sena UBT, NCP (SP, and Congress managed to win 20, 16, and 10 seats respectively, bringing the MVA's total to a meagre 46 in the 288-member Assembly.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Part-time teachers' stir enters day 12; no resolution in sight
Chennai: The state-wide protest by several associations of part-time teachers entered its 12th day on Thursday, with several teachers reiterating their demand for permanent appointment and a grant of medical insurance worth 10 lakh. Over 100 teachers participated in the protest in Chennai on Saturday. "Despite repeated appeals, officials are unwilling to address our demands. We will intensify our protest until our needs are met," said TN Part-time Teachers Federation city secretary S Natramizhan. Appointed under the Samagra Shiksha scheme in 2012 to teach eight special subjects, the teachers say they have been working for a meagre pay of 12,500 without benefits. "The DMK promised in its 2021 election manifesto that our appointments would be addressed. It was not done. Following intense demonstrations, in 2023, Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi announced in the Assembly that we will be given medical insurance. That has not happened too. How long can we wait? How much more time does the govt need?" said N Murali, a part-time teacher. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai During a brief interaction with presspersons in Thanjavur on Saturday, Anbil Mahesh said the govt will soon come out with a favourable announcement for the part-time teachers.
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Indian Express
CJI-led bench to hear on July 22 President's reference to it on timeline for assent to Bills
The Supreme Court will take up on July 22 the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the apex court's verdict fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. A Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar will consider the matter. In the Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of the Governors and President are justiciable and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for Governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. The SC had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, headed by Justice J B Pardiwala, set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. In her reference to the SC, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under' it. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. President Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 [and not Article 131] of the Constitution of India raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
