Kerala govt increases school hours for Classes VIII to X by half an hour to meet RTE Act requirements
The Kerala government has issued an order increasing the working hours of Classes VIII to X in government, aided, and recognised unaided schools following State syllabus by 15 minutes each in the morning and afternoon (30 minutes total) on all days except Fridays.
The revised timings will come into effect immediately. This will help realise the target of 220 working days and 1,100 instructional hours for Class VIII as per the Right to Education (RTE) Act and for Classes IX and X as per the Kerala Education Rules.
As per the revised timetable for the high school, classes will begin at 9.45 a.m. and conclude at 4.15 p.m. The first period will begin at 9.45 a.m. and the second at 10.30 a.m. A 10-minute interval at 11.15 a.m. will be followed by the third period at 11.25 a.m. and the fourth period at 12.05 p.m.
A one-hour breaks will be held from 12.45 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. Fifth and sixth periods will begin at 1.45 p.m. and 2.25 p.m. A five-minute break at 3.05 p.m. will be followed by seventh and eighth periods at 3.10 p.m. and 3.45 p.m.
According to another order, six Saturdays in a week without consecutive six working days will be working for Classes VIII to X this academic year. This means the high school section will function on July 26, August 16, October 4, October 25, January 3, and January 31.
For Classes V to VII, two Saturdays in a week that do not have consecutive six working days will be school days. That is July 26 and October 25 will be working days for upper primary classes.
There will be no additional working days for Classes I to IV this year.
The decision comes in the wake of a High Court directive to the government to re-examine the school academic calendar to ensure adequate instructional hours. A five-member committee that looked into the matter had suggested in its report to the government that the school timings be increased by half an hour a day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Caste survey for social justice: Siddaramaiah
The Karnataka cabinet on Thursday formally announced the decision to carry out a fresh caste-based socio-educational survey across the state within a 90-day timeline, scrapping the earlier 2015 exercise and its subsequent 2024 report. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced the move after a special cabinet meeting in Bengaluru. 'We have taken a decision in the cabinet. It was a unanimous decision that a new survey is to be conducted,' he said. The government will consult the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission (KSBCC), which will oversee the survey and submit its report within the stipulated time. Siddaramaiah said, 'The government will consult the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission… we are going to give 90 days' time to survey afresh and to give the report.' The CM said the decision was in line with Section 11(1) of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1995, which mandates a new survey every 10 years. 'After considering all aspects and the law, as it has been 10 years since the Socio-Educational survey was conducted by the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission, the cabinet has decided to go for a new survey; and as per Section 11(2) of the Act, it has been decided to consult the commission in this regard.' The Congress high command, including party president Mallikarjun Kharge and senior leader Rahul Gandhi, directed the state earlier this week to initiate a fresh enumeration, citing concerns of underrepresentation of communities in the earlier exercise. Asked whether the move was made under pressure, Siddaramaiah responded, 'Just because they asked us to do a new survey, we are not doing it. We have not succumbed to pressure from the high command.' Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, also present at the post-cabinet press briefing, echoed this sentiment, stating, 'We don't want political colour. We want social justice. For this reason, we have decided to conduct a caste census again. The opposition parties, who criticised the previous report, are now talking the opposite way.' He said the decision was made after carefully considering public opinion and the views of legislators. 'Anyone can say anything. We have given our consent to the re-examination of the caste census after understanding the feelings and opinions of the people and legislators.' The 2015 survey was conducted from April 11 to May 30 by over 1.6 lakh staff, including 1.33 lakh teachers. It covered 5.98 crore people out of an estimated 6.35 crore population at the time, based on the 2011 Census. The survey had been based on 54 parameters through a door-to-door process. Despite the exhaustive nature of the 2015 survey, it was widely criticised—especially by Karnataka's two dominant communities, the Vokkaligas and the Veerashaiva-Lingayats—who termed it 'unscientific' and demanded that it be rejected. Siddaramaiah noted, 'It is not a question of Vokkaligas or Lingayats. Other backward communities have also given their suggestions.' There was also opposition within the ruling Congress party to accepting the 2015 data. 'Only after discussions started did we realise that, by law and constitutional provisions, it was 10 years old, and a fresh survey was needed,' Siddaramaiah said. 'The provision in the Act is clear that a new survey has to be conducted every 10 years, after which a new list of backward classes could be drawn up by either deleting existing castes or adding new ones.' Siddaramaiah also clarified that although the cabinet had earlier considered the recommendations submitted in February 2024 by the K Jayaprakash Hegde-led commission—based on the 2015 data—it was now deemed outdated. 'The delivery of social justice is possible on the basis of the new report,' he added. When asked what would happen to recommendations such as increasing Muslim reservation to 8%, the CM said, 'After the new survey it will be re-examined.' Responding to a question about the Centre's announcement on including caste data in the national census, he said Karnataka's survey would differ because 'they have nowhere said that they will do a socio-educational survey'. The 2015 survey, conducted under then KSBCC chairman H Kantharaju, had not been accepted during Siddaramaiah's first term as CM (2013-18). He explained that after Congress lost the 2018 election, the then CM HD Kumaraswamy allegedly blocked the acceptance of the survey report. 'Kantharaju had approached the then backward classes welfare minister Puttarangashetty with a request to receive the report, but the then CM Kumaraswamy put pressure on the minister not to receive it,' Siddaramaiah alleged. Later, the BJP government appointed K Jayaprakash Hegde, who was with the party at the time, to head the commission and submit a report based on the old data. Although the report was submitted on February 29, 2024, parliamentary elections delayed cabinet discussions on it until April. The report was placed before the cabinet for the first time on April 11 and discussed in 3-4 meetings since then. Asked about the survey cost, Siddaramaiah declined to comment. He, however, confirmed that members to the Backward Classes Commission would be appointed 'in the next two to three days,' and arrangements would be made to allow Kannadigas living abroad to participate in the survey online. 'This is the original intention of the Congress party,' Shivakumar added. 'Our aim is to involve everyone in the society.' BJP MLC N Ravikumar objected to taxpayer money spent in crores for the 2015 survey if its data were to be rejected in the end. Ravikumar said the Congress's suggestion to re-enumerate the data collected under the 2015 social and educational survey was a 'slap' to the Siddaramaiah-led government, which originally commissioned and supported it during its first term. 'The Congress high command has done injustice to the backward classes. The Congress high command also slammed Siddaramaiah, saying that it was 10 years old and the figures were old,' he said. Ravikumar, who is also the chief whip of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council, added that Siddaramaiah had intended to implement the caste census figures submitted by the Permanent Backward Classes Commission but changed his stance after returning from Delhi. 'Many in Congress had objected to the caste census figures. However, Siddaramaiah had said that he would implement it. But he says that he would conduct a new caste census after returning from Delhi. If so, why did he spend ₹165 crore of taxpayer money? Siddaramaiah, who was called the champion of the backward classes, has done injustice to them,' he said. Shivakumar challenged critics within opposition ranks: 'Let Kumaraswamy, Vijayendra, and Ashok hold a press conference again and say that they should accept the old report… The opposition parties are talking one thing in the past and another in the future.'
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity
The discovery of burnt currency at the residence of a sitting judge on the night of March 14 has caused cracks in the faith that the public has in the judiciary, the integrity of institutions and the perception of justice in a democratic society. Certain efforts appear to have been made to heal the injury caused by this incident by initiating an in-house inquiry. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) quite diligently constituted a panel of three senior judges. The committee has given its report to the Chief Justice, who has submitted it to the President of India. It is reported that on the basis of the findings arrived at by the panel of judges, the CJI has recommended the removal of the judge through impeachment. On June 10, an Independent member of the Rajya Sabha and former law minister, Kapil Sibal, claimed that any motion to impeach the judge on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry would be unconstitutional. Sibal's view is well-founded. The in-house committee has conducted the procedure to satisfy the need for a regular inquiry under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act stipulates the procedure for an investigation by a committee into allegations of misbehaviour by — or incapacity of — a judge. A House or both Houses of Parliament can take up a motion of impeachment only after such an inquiry. The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose. By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable. With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts. The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn't seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches. The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty. The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
