Raj submits consent in SC to terminate Katara's term
Katara, who was suspended in Jan 2024 by governor Kalraj Mishra, faces serious allegations of involvement in the Grade II Teacher Exam-2022 paper leak case. His role in the scandal sparked a major controversy over corruption and malpractice in the state's recruitment processes.
Patel said, "The state govt initiated action against Katara by sending a detailed report to the governor last year. As per constitutional protocol, the governor forwarded the case to the President's office.
Since the matter is sub judice, the consent for his termination was also submitted to the Supreme Court. We are now awaiting final orders. Once the process is complete, Katara will be removed from his post, and all his official benefits will be withdrawn.
"
The minister also clarified that cases involving grave misconduct by RPSC members are handled through a rigorous constitutional process. The appointment and removal of RPSC members are governed by formal regulations under the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1974, and removal can only be effected after presidential consent. Katara was in judicial custody for over two years and was recently denied bail by a special CBI court, which cited his direct involvement in the paper leak racket.
According to the investigation, Katara is accused of leaking the exam paper in collusion with his nephew and others, allegedly accepting payments in cash, gold, and iPhones in return for providing the paper to select candidates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Do not use name of living personalities in govt ads: Madras HC
Bengaluru The Madras high court has said that political parties cannot use names or images of any living personality, including chief ministers and ideological leaders, as well as party insignia or symbols, in government advertisements for welfare schemes. Do not use name of living personalities in govt ads: Madras HC A bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan barred the inclusion of 'the name of any living personality, photographs of former chief ministers or ideological leaders,' and 'party symbols, emblems, or flags of political parties,' including those of the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu, in advertisements for government welfare schemes. The bench passed the order on July 31 while hearing a petition filed by AIADMK Member of Parliament C Ve Shanmugam, who had sought an injunction against the DMK government's use of Chief Minister MK Stalin's name and image, as well as the images of other DMK leaders, in the State's public grievance redressal scheme 'Mudhalvarin Mugavari.' Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, who appeared for Shanmugam, told the court that using the chief minister's name and party images in a state-funded scheme violated Supreme Court directives and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014. The court said that the use of such references in state-sponsored promotions did 'prima facie' violate multiple apex court rulings, including the latter's clarification issued in 2016 on the review petition filed in the case of State of Karnataka vs Common Cause. In such order, the Supreme Court had clarified that while the photograph of an incumbent chief minister may be used in official government advertisements, photographs of ideological leaders or former chief ministers will prima facie violate its earlier directives aimed at curbing political misuse of public funds, the high court said. 'It would not be permissible to mention the name of the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia/logo/emblem/flag also appears to be prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India,' the high court said. It said that keeping in mind the above, it was passing an order 'to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of respondent No.4 (DMK) shall not be included.' Opposing the plea, the state's counsel, Advocate General P S Raman, had argued that the petition relied on unauthenticated materials such as unofficial printouts, which did not represent official government publications. Raman assured the court that the government had not used the photographs of any political leaders or party symbols in its promotional materials and requested time to file a detailed affidavit along with authentic records. Senior advocate P Wilson, who was representing the DMK, told the court the petition was politically motivated. Wilson pointed out that the petitioner belonged to the opposition and alleged that the plea was an attempt to 'malign' the ruling party's image 'under the guise of public interest.' While recording that the State denied the petitioner's claims, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing government publicity. The Bench said it was 'inclined to pass an interim order' given the petitioner's apprehension that more such schemes were in the pipeline. However, the court clarified that its present order did not interfere with the actual launch or implementation of any welfare scheme. 'We have not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of welfare schemes of the government,' the bench said. The court also made it clear that the pendency of the petition will not restrain the Election Commission of India or other competent authorities from taking action on the basis of the petitioner's complaint. The court is likely to hear the matter further on August 13.
Hans India
32 minutes ago
- Hans India
MyVoice: Views of our readers 2nd Aug 2025
MLAs defections: SC directions praiseworthy The Supreme Court ordering the speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to take decision on the ten MLAs who are facing charges of defection within three months is praiseworthy. The speaker has been taking time longer than it should be to decide the matter, subverting the spirit of the anti-defection law. Though there is no mention of time limit in rule books for speakers to take a call on defections, the inordinate delay makes a mockery of well laid down democratic norms. It's good that the apex court has set the record straight and hopefully the speaker will act per the court ruling. Dr DVG Sankara Rao, Vizianagaram Put a permanent stop to defections The speakers of Parliament and that of the State legislative bodies have often been found undermining democratic values when it comes to defections by elected people's representatives. Indian democracy has always been subverted by opportunistic politicians, who derive tacit support from speakers, who misuse their constitutional authority in taking decisions vis-à-vis the detectors. It is now for the Parliament to 'listen' to the sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court in this regard and set the record straight. But none of the political parties would want to close doors to their pursuit of power, by hook or crook. And for them 'defection' is the biggest weapon even if it means subverting democracy! The Supreme Court can't order the speakers to take decisions within a stipulated time frame. It is for the Parliament to reconcile and bring in legislation to permanently settle the issue, so that the menace of defections is stopped once and for all. Govardhana Myneedu, Vijayawada Historic ruling by the Supreme Court SC giving the Telangana Legislative Assembly speaker three months to decide on the defection of 10 BRS employees to Congress is a historical decision. However, it raises a crucial question: why not work out a robust constitutional provision to prevent defections altogether? In instances where MLAs switch loyalties after winning elections, a clear provision could mandate resignation from the incumbent party before joining another. This would uphold democratic values and prevent the erosion of public trust. Notably, many political leaders, including K Chandrasekhar Rao, K T Rama Rao, and N Chandrababu Naidu have encouraged such defections, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. In this context, the Supreme Court's role becomes pivotal in protecting democratic principles and ensuring accountability. A strong constitutional provision would help prevent future incidents and restore faith in the system. The judiciary's proactive stance is crucial in upholding the nation's democratic fabric. Dr. Venkat Yadav Avula, MASS Hyderabad Calling Trump's tariff bluff In an increasingly fractious world order, the U.S. fired another salvo in its trade war targeting India with a hefty tariff on exports effective from August 1, besides additional penalties for buying Russian oil and arms. This only goes to show that US President Donald Trump has been a vitriolic opportunity offender, who cannot be fully relied upon. However, India's response to Trump's provocations has been measured and non-combative by saying that India will protect the interests of its farmers and MSMEs. Apparently, Trump must understand that like earlier, India is not a soft state now with deep economic resilience, vast domestic absorption capacity, therefore, there can be no giving in to his pressure tactics. Despite Trump describing closeness of India and Russia as 'dead economies', it is imperative that India refrain from reacting in a knee-jerk manner by keeping calm while trying to explore fast-track deals with the EU and other destinations more or less on the deals signed with the UK. India must adopt a cautious approach while at the same time remaining firm in its dealings that sends a strong message to Trump to agree to even terms in trade policy because his likes and dislikes of BRICS and global South is not going to help America in any manner in the long term both in trade and foreign policy matters with India. K R Srinivasan, Secunderabad-3
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Colombian ex-President Alvaro Uribe sentenced to 12 years house arrest for bribery
Alvaro Uribe, the former President of Colombia, received a 12-year house arrest sentence. The conviction relates to witness tampering and bribery charges. The court also imposed a fine and a ban from holding public office. Uribe plans to appeal the decision. The case has sparked varied reactions in Colombia. Some people support Uribe, while others celebrate the sentence. Opponents of former President Alvaro Uribe gather outside the court on the day he was sentenced to 12 years under house arrest for witness tampering and bribery in Bogota, Colombia, Friday, Aug. 1, 2025. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe was sentenced Friday to 12 years of house arrest for witness tampering and bribery in a historic case that gripped the South American nation and tarnished the conservative strongman's sentence, which Uribe said will be appealed, followed a nearly six-month trial in which prosecutors presented evidence that he attempted to influence witnesses who accused the law-and-order leader of having links to a paramilitary group in the 1990s."Politics prevailed over the law in sentencing," Uribe said after Friday's 73, has denied any wrongdoing. He faced up to 12 years in prison after being convicted attorney had asked the court to allow Uribe to remain free while he appeals the verdict. Judge Sandra Heredia on Friday said she did not grant the defense's request because it would be "easy" for the former president to leave the country to "evade the imposed sanction."Heredia also banned Uribe from holding public office for eight years and fined him about $776, of Friday's sentencing, Uribe posted on X that he was preparing arguments to support his appeal. He added that one must "think much more about the solution than the problem" during personal appeals court will have until early October to issue a ruling, which either party could then challenge before Colombia's Supreme former president governed from 2002 to 2010 with strong support from the United States. He is a polarizing figure in Colombia, where many credit him for saving the country from becoming a failed state, while others associate him with human rights violations and the rise of paramilitary groups in the on Monday said she had seen enough evidence to determine that Uribe conspired with a lawyer to coax three former paramilitary group members, who were in prison, into changing testimony they had provided to Ivan Cepeda, a leftist senator who had launched an investigation into Uribe's alleged ties to a paramilitary in 2012 filed a libel suit against Cepeda in the Supreme Court. But in a twist, the high court in 2018 dismissed the accusations against Cepeda and began investigating Penuela Rosales, a supporter of Uribe's party in the capital, Bogota, said she wept and prayed after hearing of the sentence. "It's an unjust sentence. He deserves to be free," she Sergio Andres Parra, who protested against Uribe outside the courthouse, said the 12-year sentence "is enough" and, even if the former president appeals, "history has already condemned him."During Uribe's presidency, Colombia's military attained some of its biggest battlefield victories against Latin America's oldest leftist insurgency, pushing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia into remote pockets and forcing the group's leadership into peace talks that led to the disarmament of more than 13,000 fighters in 2016.
