Higher Education Minister hails Supreme Court verdict dismissing plea for enforcement of NEP in 3 States including Kerala
Minister for Higher Education R. Bindu has hailed the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a plea seeking enforcement of the National Education Policy (NEP), including the three language formula, by the Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal governments.
Addressing a press meet here on Monday (May 12, 2025), Ms. Bindu said that the NEP and recent UGC regulations encroached into the rights of the States and were against the federal principles. They were against Constitutional provisions and created a lot of difficulties to the States. The protest against these developments were ubiquitous. The apex court verdict is in keeping with the basic tenets of the Constitution, she said.
Ms. Bindu said that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan will inaugurate Science Centre, which is the first phase of the proposed Science City, at Kuravilangad grama panchayat in Kottayam on May 29. The Science Centre, spread over 47,147 sq. ft., features science galleries, 3D exhibition centre, science park, seminar hall, and innovation hub.
The Science City is being proposed on 30 acres under the Higher Education department's Kerala State Science and Technology Museum. It encompasses planetarium, motion simulator, augmented reality, virtual reality theatres, musical fountain, light and sound shows, stargazing facilities, gardens, visitor's area and related infrastructure facilities.
Ms. Bindu said that the government has already spent ₹50 crore for the project. A second phase of ₹45 crore has been drawn up. Efforts are on to set up a biodiversity park on the Science City campus in association with the Uzhavoor block panchayat, Kuravilangad panchayat and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Census, followed by delimitation or freeze? The road ahead, likely legal challenges
The current freeze on delimitation — which for the past 50 years has based the allocation of seats to states in the Lok Sabha on the census figures of 1971 — will expire in 2026, unless Parliament passes another Constitutional Amendment Bill by then to extend it. The reason: the Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. It says, 'Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.' Article 81 of the Constitution provides for the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle. Article 81 (2) (a) says, 'There shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States.' Article 81 (2) (b) says, 'Each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State.' With the collection of data for the next census ending by March 1, 2027, the release of census data could coincide with the expiry of the freeze on delimitation. This freeze was put in place first for 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 1976, and again by 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 2002. The reason for the freeze was the concern of the southern states that because their population had stabilised by then, and the population of some northern states had begun to grow at a brisk pace, their representation in the Lok Sabha would go down. To freeze or not to freeze With the Constitution ensuring equality of representation to citizens and not states of the Union, and mandating delimitation every 10 years to adjust the allocation of the seats to population, the only way in which the southern states will not lose representation would have to be another Constitutional amendment. However, with government sources saying that the idea is to have delimitation and then women's reservation in the Lok Sabha elections of 2029, the census is likely to be followed by delimitation. The website of the Election Commission of India says, 'Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After the commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.' In other words, the release of census data will be followed by the passage of the Delimitation Bill in Parliament, unless Parliament suspends the constitutionally mandated process by amending the Constitution to freeze delimitation by, say, another 25 years. Potential legal issues Once the Delimitation Commission is constituted by the Centre, it will use the latest census data to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies. However, it will be bound by Article 81 of the Constitution to redraw these on the basis of the latest population data, unless Article 81 is itself amended. Article 81 may anyway require amendments. For instance, since it limits the strength of the Lok Sabha to 550 under clauses (a) and (b), the strength will have to revised through a constitutional amendment so as to ensure that one MP does not represent too large a population, and to pave way for the reservation of women without cutting down the seats available to men. Article 81 as of now makes one exception to the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, by giving small states and Union Territories at least one seat even if their population is very low. Since the Constitution is clear about the centrality of this principle in all other cases, the only way the south does not lose relative strength in the Lok Sabha will be by amending Article 81 (2) (a). However, any move to amend Article 81 (2) (a) would be liable to challenge in the Supreme Court as violative of the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The fear in south India is that if delimitation is based purely on population, northern states will get much more seats and thus a very large voice in Parliament. But if the law is amended and they get more seats than they would through the population criterion, then voters in the north and the south are not being treated equally. Even if the principle of reasonable classification — likes be treated alike — is evoked, it will be based on the argument that better social and economic indicators require special protection for southern states. This logic is exactly opposite to the one that permits reservation on the grounds that the state can make special provisions for the backward classes. The delimitation question, thus, has no easy answers, and is likely to lead to much litigation. Vikas Pathak is deputy associate editor with The Indian Express and writes on national politics. He has over 17 years of experience, and has worked earlier with The Hindustan Times and The Hindu, among other publications. He has covered the national BJP, some key central ministries and Parliament for years, and has covered the 2009 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls and many state assembly polls. He has interviewed many Union ministers and Chief Ministers. Vikas has taught as a full-time faculty member at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; Symbiosis International University, Pune; Jio Institute, Navi Mumbai; and as a guest professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. Vikas has authored a book, Contesting Nationalisms: Hinduism, Secularism and Untouchability in Colonial Punjab (Primus, 2018), which has been widely reviewed by top academic journals and leading newspapers. He did his PhD, M Phil and MA from JNU, New Delhi, was Student of the Year (2005-06) at ACJ and gold medalist from University Rajasthan College in Jaipur in graduation. He has been invited to top academic institutions like JNU, St Stephen's College, Delhi, and IIT Delhi as a guest speaker/panellist. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Cash row: Congress seeks SC report on allegations against Justice Varma
The Congress has asked the government to share with it the report of a Supreme Court-appointed committee that probed graft allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of his impeachment before the Monsoon session of Parliament, party sources said on Thursday. The government, however, is yet to respond, the sources said. Several burnt sacks containing cash were allegedly discovered at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire broke out there in March, when he was a Delhi High Court judge. Though the judge, who was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has initiated discussions with all political parties to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21. The Congress sources said the party has asked Rijiju to share the report of the committee so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of impeachment. The minister is yet to get back to the Congress, they said. Last week, Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving the impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said the government wants the exercise to be a "collaborative effort". According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Rijiju, however, has said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said earlier. The minister had said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. Following the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry, former CJI Sanjeev Khanna is believed to have prodded Varma to resign but he dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Former CJI Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC stays govt mandate for quota in minority institutions for Class 11 admissions
The Bombay High Court has temporarily suspended the Maharashtra government's order mandating minority educational institutions to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes for junior college admissions. Justices Karnik and Borkar issued the stay following petitions challenging the May 6 resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Maharashtra government 's mandate to minority educational institutes to reserve seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes for first-year junior college admissions.A bench of Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar passed the order on a bunch of petitions filed by some minority institutions , challenging the May 6 resolution issued by the government's school education and sports department applying the constitutional/social reservations in minority education high court said it found substance in the petitioners' arguments and hence the mandate of social reservation will not be applicable for Class 11 admissions in minority educational HC bench said it was granting a stay on the clause of the resolution that included minority educational institutes for the directed the government to file its affidavit in reply to the petitions and posted the matter for further hearing on August high court on Wednesday questioned the government's rationale behind the resolution and asked if it was willing to withdraw the same or issue a corrigendum clarifying that minority institutes would not be included in the Thursday, government pleader Neha Bhide told the court that she has no instructions from the government to withdraw the resolution or issue a per the pleas, Article 15(5) of the Constitution excludes minority educational institutes, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward petitions claimed that under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the institution.A similar GR (government resolution) was issued in 2019 but it was withdrawn after petitions were filed then, they said.
