Sericulture dept holds seminar on RTI Act
Advocate Adiga Sridhar was the keynote speaker and provided a detailed presentation on the RTI Act.
He explained the Act's goals, its role in promoting transparent governance, and the legal responsibilities of government employees.
Sridhar also covered the procedures for responding to information requests, the types of information that can be disclosed, and the deadlines for doing so. Additionally, he discussed relevant topics such as the Conduct Rules and recent changes in public service laws.
District sericulture officer K Nagesh, along with assistant directors from Atmakur, attended the seminar. Nagesh stated that the sericulture department is dedicated to implementing the RTI Act on time, as directed by the department's director.
He emphasized that providing information within the specified time frame is crucial for accountable governance.
About 50 officials and staff from the sericulture department participated in the seminar.
The session was informative and is part of the department's ongoing effort to effectively respond to public information requests and uphold the spirit of the RTI Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Cash recovery alone not ground for impeachment, Kapil Sibal argues in SC, in defence of Justice Yashwant Varma
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today heard arguments in a sensitive case involving a sitting High Court judge, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asserting that the recovery of unaccounted cash from the outhouse of a judge cannot, by itself, constitute 'misconduct' or 'proved incapacity', the only grounds for removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that indicted him, as well as a recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, seeking initiation of impeachment proceedings. Sibal, appearing on behalf of Justice Varma, questioned the legal basis of the recommendation. 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act governs the procedure for removal of judges. "A mere finding of cash in the outhouse, without a clear link to misconduct or incapacity, cannot justify impeachment,' he submitted. He added, 'If cash is found in the outhouse, what specific behaviour of the judge is being impugned? There is no allegation of misconduct, much less 'proved misbehaviour' as required by the Constitution.' Justice Datta, however, pointed out that such conduct could amount to 'misbehaviour' under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Sibal acknowledged the possibility but countered that even then, it may not rise to the level necessary to warrant removal from office. The Bench also noted that Justice Varma had not disputed the incident of fire at the premises or the subsequent cash recovery. In response, Sibal stressed that no investigative body or the in-house panel could conclusively determine the ownership of the cash, and no inference should be drawn against the judge without substantive proof. At the core of Sibal's argument was the contention that the Chief Justice of India has no constitutional authority to initiate or recommend impeachment proceedings. 'It is for the Members of Parliament to move such a motion if they are convinced that a judge's conduct warrants removal,' he said. 'The President and Prime Minister are completely alien to this process,' he emphasized. When Justice Datta pointed out that the committee's findings are not considered as formal 'evidence' under law, Sibal replied, 'Yet those findings became the basis for the CJI's communication recommending removal. Once that happens, what is Parliament expected to do other than follow it?' Justice Datta clarified that any removal must follow the due process laid out under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires an inquiry by a three-judge committee before any motion in Parliament. The Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Wednesday, indicating that it will continue to examine both procedural and constitutional aspects of the case. UNI SNG RN
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Social Media Used For Academic Interaction Falls In Ambit Of Workplace Under POSH Law: Delhi HC
A DU professor accused of sexual harassment had challenged the university's disciplinary action, claiming social media conversations should not be treated as workplace harassment The Delhi High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of a Delhi University assistant professor after an internal complaints committee found him guilty of sexually harassing four students and an alumna via WhatsApp and Facebook messages. The court ruled that social media platforms used in the context of academic interactions are within the ambit of a workplace under the POSH law. The professor had challenged the findings of the internal complaints committee (ICC) and the university's disciplinary action, claiming procedural irregularities and arguing that private social media conversations should not be treated as workplace harassment. The court rejected all grounds of challenge. The complaints, filed in 2018, alleged that the professor had sent sexually charged, inappropriate, and unsolicited messages through Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Screenshots submitted by the complainants revealed late-night texts with sexual innuendos and repeated digital contact despite objections. The ICC found the complaints credible and concluded that the conduct constituted sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The inquiry established that the accused used his position to exploit academic and personal boundaries over digital platforms. The professor was issued a show-cause notice in July 2018. After considering his written response and oral submissions before the governing body, the university accepted the ICC's recommendation and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement in October 2018, which was subsequently ratified by the vice-chancellor. In his petition before the Delhi High Court, the professor argued that the ICC was not properly constituted and that the inquiry process violated Rule 7(7) of the POSH Rules. He claimed the committee had failed to offer him sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainants and that no detailed 'speaking order" was issued by the university in the final disciplinary decision. Justice Subramonium Prasad, however, dismissed the petition. The court held that the ICC was validly constituted and the inquiry was conducted as per law. The professor's non-cooperation during evidence collection and cross-examination was noted on record, and the court found no procedural irregularity that could vitiate the process. Significantly, the HC held that digital platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, when used in the context of academic or hierarchical relationships, fall within the scope of 'workplace" under the POSH Act. The power dynamic between the professor and the students was relevant in establishing the workplace context, despite the online medium. The court observed that the 'WhatsApp and Facebook messages sent by the petitioner are so profane that this court refrains from reproducing the same in the order". It also remarked that 'teachers shape the careers of young aspiring students", and misconduct by educators has a 'deleterious effect on the psyche" of the victims. The court clarified that the absence of a speaking order from the university did not cause prejudice to the petitioner, since the disciplinary process followed ICC findings and provided both notice and hearing. The ruling reaffirms the legal validity of ICC inquiries under the POSH Act and reinforces the interpretation that harassment through digital channels by a person in authority, even outside institutional premises, can constitute workplace sexual harassment. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
2019 anti-CAA stir: HC seeks police reply on Tanha's plea
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a reply from the police on a plea filed by student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha challenging the framing of charges against him in a case of violence during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in 2019 in south Delhi's Jamia Nagar. The court posted the next hearing for October 30. In March, a trial court had framed charges against Mr. Tanha and 10 others, observing that they had 'committed abetment by prior conspiracy as well as by instigating violent mob activity at the spot'. He has been charged under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the Arms Act. The trial court in March framed charges, observing Imam's December 13, 2019 speech near the Jamia University as a 'venomous', 'pitted one religion against another' and was 'indeed a hate speech'. It framed charges against Imam, Tanha and nine others, stating 'accused Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar and Aasif Iqbal Tanha committed abetment by prior conspiracy as well as by instigating violent mob activity at the spot, for which penal provision of Section 109 (abetment) of the IPC is justifiably invoked against them.' Section 109 deals with abetment of an offence and attracts the same punishment given to the offender. The case stems from the 2019-20 protests at Jamia Millia Islamia and Shaheen Bagh after the passage of CAA in Parliament on December 11, 2019.
