logo
Gurjar mahapanchayat ends after state govt's assurance on meeting their demands

Gurjar mahapanchayat ends after state govt's assurance on meeting their demands

Deccan Herald2 hours ago

Gurjar leader Vijay Bainsla read out the state government's response before the gathering, which included the cabinet's decision to recommend the inclusion of five per cent reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds

The Hindu

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over ₹2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025. A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the State government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the Bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education, invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more States, or between one or more States. The State government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff State unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the State are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the State government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "₹2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6% per annum on the "principal sum of ₹2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60% share amounted to ₹2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the State. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Also read: How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of Madras Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added.

Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land during rehab: Delhi High Court
Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land during rehab: Delhi High Court

New Indian Express

time18 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land during rehab: Delhi High Court

NEW DELHI: A nearly 30-year-old slum cluster in South Delhi's Kalkaji is set for demolition after the Delhi High Court ruled that encroachers cannot indefinitely occupy public land while their rehabilitation claims are pending. The court observed that permitting such occupation would obstruct crucial public works and development projects. The order, delivered on June 6 by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, came while hearing a batch of petitions filed by residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, an informal settlement largely inhabited by migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Around 1,200 people had approached the court seeking a stay on demolition, asking the DDA to maintain status quo and not evict them until they were surveyed and rehabilitated under the 2015 Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy. The court, however, dismissed their plea, noting that the petitions were flawed due to improper clubbing of multiple parties and causes of action. It further stated that the petitioners had failed to meet the eligibility conditions under the 2015 policy to qualify for rehabilitation. 'None of the petitioners have any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large,' the court said, adding that the right to rehabilitation arises only from policy, not from the Constitution. It also clarified that removal of encroachments and eligibility for rehabilitation are separate processes and pending claims cannot justify delaying demolition. The court allowed the DDA to proceed with demolition as per law and directed that eligible residents be allotted flats under EWS category.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds

Time of India

time34 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over Rs 2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the state government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government 's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education , invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more states, or between one or more states. Live Events The state government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff state unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the state are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the state government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "Rs 2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6 per cent per annum on the "principal sum of Rs 2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of Rs 3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60 per cent share amounted to Rs 2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the state. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store