No scope for controversy over Vijnana Keralam post, says Isaac
Former Finance Minister T.M. Thomas Isaac on Friday ruled out any scope for a controversy over his appointment as advisor to the Vijnana Keralam initiative of the State government.
Dr. Isaac was reacting to a public interest litigation questioning his appointment and an amicus curiae report to the High Court based on it. Dr. Isaac said he was happy to have received an opportunity to explain matters before the court.
Only travel expenses
On the question of the remuneration for his post, he said he was eligible only for travel expenses. Vijnana Keralam is aimed at aligning skilling with job creation, according to Dr. Isaac.
Skilling programmes for the student community under the Vijnana Keralam campaign is to be rolled out from August, he said. He went on to add that the Kerala Development and Innovation Strategic Council (K-DISC) assumed its present structure during the previous LDF government's term. K-DISC was shaped with the approval of the Finance department, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
13 hours ago
- India.com
Pakistan cannot launch nuclear bombs from sea while India can do it easily, this is due to...
(Image: New Delhi: There are 9 countries in the world that have nuclear weapons and these 9 countries include both India and Pakistan. Time and again, Pakistan has threatened to use its nuclear weapons against India. One such instance was during the recent tension between India and Pakistan, when Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif threatened nuclear attack on India. Despite having nuclear weapons, Pakistan has many weaknesses, one of them is that Pakistan cannot fire nuclear bombs from the sea. Let us tell you what is that weakness due to which Pakistan cannot fire nuclear bombs from the sea. There are only a few countries in the world that have the capability of nuclear triad, that is, such countries have the capability to launch nuclear attacks from all three mediums, land, air and water, in which the first one is land-based missiles, with which nuclear attacks are carried out. The second number includes bombs dropped from aircraft and the third number includes submarines or missiles launched from the sea to attack the enemy from the sea. Pakistan is capable of attacking in the first two ways, but if it comes to a nuclear attack from the sea, then Pakistan's weakness comes out in the open. Pakistan does not have any nuclear submarine yet that can launch a nuclear missile from inside the sea. This is Pakistan's biggest weakness. India has the missile capability of submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) like K-15 and K-4, which are capable of launching a nuclear attack from inside the sea. On the other hand, Pakistan is still far behind in SLBM technology. Due to low defense budget and lack of technology, Pakistan has not been able to acquire this capability yet. Along with this, the Pakistani Navy is smaller and less developed than India.
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Uttarakhand High Court asks state govt to explain delay in phasing out revenue police system
DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand High Court has asked the state government to respond within four weeks to a contempt petition that accuses it of ignoring earlier court orders to phase out the revenue police system and set up regular police stations in certain areas. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of the single-judge bench heard the petition filed by Haldwani resident Amit Kholia. He alleged that the state government has not implemented the court's May 2023 order to end the revenue police system. "The government had assured the court that it would take steps to establish regular police stations in areas where the revenue police system is currently in place. However, no significant progress has been made in this regard," Kholia's petition stated. The petition pointed out that the Supreme Court had, back in 2004, underlined the need to do away with the revenue police system, as its personnel lacked proper training and modern facilities. "Revenue police personnel are not trained like civil police and lack basic facilities like forensic investigation, DNA testing, and fingerprint analysis," it stated. The High Court had issued similar directions in 2018, but those too were not followed. The matter has drawn renewed attention after the Ankita Bhandari murder case, which raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the revenue police. In response, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami had ordered steps to quickly transfer control from the revenue police to the regular police. The revenue police system, which still exists in some parts of Uttarakhand, dates back to the British era. Under this system, local revenue officials have to perform police duties, including maintaining law and order and investigating crimes. Critics argue that the system is outdated and ineffective, and that regular police forces are needed for better law enforcement.
India Gazette
14 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC asks Govt to reconsider remission cancellation, directs opportunity for convict to be heard
New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to reconsider the cancellation of the remission granted to a life convict, stressing the need to follow principles of natural justice. The remission was revoked following the convict's arrest in an attempted murder case. 'The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed through administrative fiat without affording procedural safeguards. Since the cancellation of remission results in the convict's re-committal to custody, the consequence is serious enough to require strict adherence to natural justice,' the High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing reconsideration, asked the authorities to issue a show cause notice to the Convict and give him an opportunity before passing an order. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar has approached the High Court challenging the cancellation on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order cancelling his remission was passed. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that any decision to revoke remission must comply with due process and must be preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice, disclosing the grounds for cancellation and granting the convict an opportunity to respond and be heard. The record does not reflect that such an opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the cancellation of remission,' the High Court said in the order passed on May 20. 'While the order was passed in accordance with the Delhi Prison (DP) Rules, 2018, which at the relevant time did not mandate a prior show-cause notice to be issued, the binding precedent of the Supreme Court now requires that such safeguard be read into the process,' Justice Narula said. The High Court ordered, 'Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness, the Court deems it appropriate to direct reconsideration of the cancellation through a procedurally sound and time-bound exercise.' The High Court directed the Delhi government shall within a period of 10 days from today issue a show cause notice detailing the specific grounds on which cancellation of remission is proposed. The Petitioner shall submit a written response within seven days and shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the bench said. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned order, after due consideration of the petitioner's response, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, Justice Narula ordered. Petitioner Sonu Sonkar moved a petition through advocate Arpit Batra challenging the order of September 24, 2022, passed by the Dy. Secretary (Home), GNCTD, affirmed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The sentence remission was revoked, directing him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Sonkar was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in a murder case from 2004. After completing fifteen years of incarceration, he applied for premature release on the grounds of sustained good conduct while in custody. The Sentence Review Board (SRB), after considering his case, recommended his premature release, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. On September 9, 2019, the Petitioner was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond. However, while on remission, in 2021, he was named in an FIR of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC as well as Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on November 30, 2021, and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The authorities construed the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a breach of the undertakings embodied in the personal bond executed at the time of his premature release. Advocate Arpit Batra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the mere pendency of a fresh FIR, particularly one in which the allegations are yet to be tested through trial, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a remission. It was also submitted that the petitioner was neither issued a show cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the order was passed. It is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. (ANI)
