Anti-Ragging Act: Kerala HC tells govt to share copies of draft amendments with stakeholders
University Grants Commission
(UGC), within a week.
The directive was issued by the bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C Jayachandran in a petition filed by KeLSA, which sought a direction to the govt to reassess the Act and frame rules to ensure the effective eradication of ragging.
During hearing, director general of prosecution (DGP) placed on record a communication from the home department additional chief secretary stating that the subcommittee constituted for preparing the draft amendments had submitted the same.
It was further informed that the home department is currently seeking comments from stakeholder departments before proceeding with the finalisation of the amendments.
However, HC observed that the drafts had not been placed before the bench and accordingly directed the state to furnish copies to the counsels for KeLSA and UGC to facilitate their suggestions. Meanwhile, KeLSA's counsel requested that the proposed amendment include a broad definition of 'educational institution' to curb the menace of ragging both within and beyond campus premises.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
KeLSA had filed the public interest litigation in response to the ragging incident at the Government College of Nursing, Kottayam, where junior students were reportedly subjected to severe physical abuse, including the tying of dumbbells to their private parts. Subsequently, the court impleaded the UGC as a respondent and sought its views on the petition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Gods dwell where women are honoured: Telangana HC CJ
Gods dwell where women are honoured: Judge Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul of the Telangana High Court has said that true empowerment of women requires respect at home, the workplace and in society. Speaking at a felicitation organised by the High Court's Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC), he referred to the saying, 'where women are honoured, there the gods dwell.' Justice Paul noted the rise in women judges in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana and called for similar progress elsewhere. He drew a parallel between preserving nature and valuing women for societal growth. Justice T Madhavi Devi, GSICC chairperson, said the committee promotes gender equality, awareness and fair treatment. Formed in June 2023, it has received two complaints, both resolved. Quoting Vivekananda, she said global welfare needs gender balance, adding that many women remain silent due to stigma. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi praised GSICC's role in promoting a safe workplace and highlighted digital harassment concerns post-COVID. Counsel: Decisions predate Srilakshmi's tenure Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Thursday adjourned hearing on a Criminal Revision Petition filed by IAS officer Y Srilakshmi to July 10. The petition relates to the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) illegal mining case. The SC had remanded the matter to the HC, observing that the earlier order had not fully considered the CBI's submissions. Srilakshmi, an Andhra Pradesh-cadre officer, is an accused in the case involving alleged illegal mining. A CBI special court earlier dismissed her discharge plea, which was allowed by the High Court. The CBI challenged this in the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court order. Senior counsel K Vivek Reddy, appearing for Srilakshmi, argued that the allegations were unfounded, pointing out that her tenure as secretary began in May 2006 and key decisions predate this. He also submitted that 'captive mining' was formalised only in 2015 and that the CBI had not initially named her in the FIR or first chargesheet. Malla Reddy colleges' plea for additional seats rejected The Telangana High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Malla Reddy group of colleges seeking allotment of additional seats. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J Sree Devi Renuka upheld an earlier decision by Justice K Lakshman rejecting the writ petitions. Senior counsels S Niranjan Reddy and D Prakash Reddy, appearing for the colleges, argued that the state had selectively granted additional seats to other colleges and denied their clients on alleged political grounds, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, representing the state, submitted that seat allotments were made considering local demand, infrastructure and educational needs. He said institutions granted additional seats were in different areas and there was no case for expansion at Malla Reddy colleges. The bench agreed there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision-making process and dismissed the appeals.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Not a real gun': HasanAbi responds to claims he threatened another YouTuber with a gun during livestream
(Image via @hasanthehun/X) Twitch's most outspoken political streamer, HasanAbi, found himself at the center of controversy again—this time for allegedly threatening a YouTuber with a gun during a livestream. The internet blew up with reactions, but the real story? It's more complicated (and chaotic) than it sounds. Here's what went down and how Hasan responded. The Clip That Sparked It All It started with a 48-second clip from Hasan's July 1, 2025 stream, which went viral two days later on Reddit's r/LivestreamFail. In the video, Hasan reacts to a YouTuber named Apex Crypto , who had apparently accused Hasan and fellow political figure Zohran Mamdani of treason. Hasan, clearly ticked off, mocked the YouTuber while holding what looked like a weapon and saying things like, 'Let's hang Hasan and Mamdani for treason,' he says. The f**k are you going to do?! You skinny b**ch! Ugly a**!" Viewers immediately questioned whether he was pointing a real gun on stream. Viewers Call Him Out Live During his July 3 stream, someone in chat dropped a bomb: 'Why did you threaten a YouTuber with a gun?' Hasan didn't hold back. He immediately clapped back, saying that the YouTuber in question literally said he should be hanged. In Hasan's words, 'Dog, that YouTuber literally said I should be hanged, and I said, 'Good luck,' and I just showed this, and said, 'Good luck with that.'' When asked directly if it was a real gun, Hasan replied: 'Yeah, it's also not a real gun. Don't worry.' So yeah, it was a toy . Hasan made that clear. But not everyone's buying the explanation. Streamer Reactions: Divided As Always As usual, fellow creators jumped in with their takes. Asmongold, never one to sit things out, was baffled: 'That's crazy! To pull out a gun and be waving it around on stream! Is Twitch going to do anything?' Tectone, on the other hand, went full scorched earth on X (formerly Twitter): 'Hasan threatens viewers life, doxxes them and pulls a gun out. No ban. I call fat woman fat = 2 weeks.' The debate's clearly split between 'It was a joke' and 'That crossed a line.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo So… Will Twitch Respond? As of now, Twitch hasn't made any public statements or issued disciplinary action. And with Hasan being one of the platform's biggest names, many are wondering if the rules apply differently to him. Did HasanAbi actually threaten someone? He says no. Was it a real gun? Also no. But did it look sus? For sure. Whether it was edgy humor or poor judgment, the internet court is still in session, and the jury's as divided as ever. Stay tuned. With Hasan, this probably isn't the last chapter. Game On Season 1 continues with Mirabai Chanu's inspiring story. Watch Episode 2 here.
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in HDFC Bank CEO's plea as Bombay HC lists case on July 14
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 4, 2025) refused to intervene in a plea filed by HDFC Bank CEO and MD Sashidhar Jagdishan to quash a First information Report (FIR) registered against him on the basis of a complaint filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the Mumbai-based Lilavati Hospital. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R. Mahadevan declined to step in after noting that the case was already listed before the Bombay High Court on July 14. 'In view of the listing of the matter on July 14, there is no occasion for us to entertain the special leave petition,' the top court observed. Appearing for Mr. Jagadishan, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the FIR was 'frivolous' and a means to rope in his client and the bank in a personal dispute between the trustees. Mr. Rohatgi said three Benches of the High Court had recused from hearing the case in June, putting the reputation of the bank and Mr. Jagdishan at risk. 'I am suffering. The bank is suffering. I want interim protection till the matter is heard,' Mr. Rohatgi urged. Justice Narasimha said the top court empathised with Mr. Rohatgi's client, however the High Court has already fixed the case on July 14, and it would be improper for the apex court to intervene in the meantime. 'We sympathise with you... Bench after Bench has recused... But now the case is listed for hearing on July 14,' Justice Narasimha remarked. The Bench recorded in its order the multiple instances the case was adjourned in June, and conveyed its 'hope and trust' that the High Court would 'take up' the matter on July 14. A team of lawyers led by senior advocate AM Singhvi appeared for the Trust in the case.
