MUTA opposes TANSCHE's draft policy on code for teachers
In a statement, A T Senthamarai Kannan, general secretary of MUTA, said the draft was released without consulting key stakeholders and curtails the fundamental right to free expression.
Teachers in higher education institutions are governed by The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. He said TANSCHE unilaterally released a draft code of conduct for teachers and solicited feedback. The document lacks any mention of scientific temperament and restricts teachers' freedom of expression.
It added that this draft is being framed without citing any violations by institutions, which raises legal concerns.
Using the term "Institutional Policy" without any such context is a dangerous precedent in higher education, he said.
MUTA notes that Tamil Nadu ranks first nationally in the higher education sector, with lakhs of students receiving education from dedicated teachers. In such a scenario, introducing new conduct rules without any proper consultations or approvals from stakeholders contradicts the existing legal and regulatory frameworks, he added.
So, MUTA urged TANSCHE to consult all stakeholders before finalising it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
No category called 'suspicious voters' in RP Act, can't manipulate EVMs: Law minister
. NEW DELHI: There is no category of voters called "suspicious voters" under the Representation of the People (RP) Act, law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said on Thursday in response to a question in Rajya Sabha. Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman raised the question whether in the last Lok Sabha elections suspicious voters had also cast their votes. He said there is a lot of speculation about suspicious voters, and alleged that the results can be manipulated on electronic voting machines (EVMs). He asked the minister if the votes were being cast correctly. " Election Commission has informed that there is no category of suspicious voters as per the RP Act," the minister said, and added that EC further informed that "the election results cannot be manipulated on EVMs". Meghwal said there is no doubt in the fairness and integrity of EVMs which, he said, have stood the test of several elections, public and legal scrutiny over the years. "EC has further informed that in at least 42 petitions against use of EVMs which have been filed before various high courts and Supreme Court, and after going through various aspects of the technological soundness and the administrative safeguards involved in the use of EVMs, the courts have repeatedly held that EVMs are tamper proof, credible and reliable," the minister added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo He said EC has mentioned that to dispel any apprehension of any kind, EVM-related documents, such as manual on EVM and VVPAT, presentation on EVM, status paper on EVM, legal history of EVMs and VVPATs and FAQs are available in public domain on EC website that anyone can check.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: UAPA sanctions invalid, terror charge can't stick, rules court
MUMBAI: Special trial judge A K Lahoti, in a key finding that led to the collapse of the Malegaon blast case , held that the prior sanction under the anti-terror law UAPA against the accused was "invalid." It was issued without judicious application of mind, and the mandatory twin test safeguard required by law was not scrupulously followed, the court said. The judge analysed Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which outlines procedural safeguards. Section 45(1) requires valid sanction from the Centre or state govt to prosecute any terror offence under the Act. Section 45(2) mandates an independent review of the evidence by an authority appointed by the govt. Lt Col Prasad Purohit, through his counsel Shrikant Shivade (who passed away in 2022) and later advocate Viral Babar, had consistently argued that the UAPA sanction was flawed. Other accused also challenged the validity of the Jan 2009 sanction and another issued in 2011 by the additional chief secretary (home). The trial court held both sanctions to be "defective." While the prosecution claimed it had followed the twin test, the court said there was no evidence it was done as mandated under Section 45(2). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo "The sanction is not a curable defect. So, all the provisions of UAPA will not be invoked," the judge ruled. Advocates Ranjeet Sangle (for Sudhakar Dwivedi) and J P Mishra (for Sadhvi Pragya Singh) also argued that the first sanction bypassed the statutory safeguard under Section 45(2), and that the absence of such review invalidated the trial court's cognisance of UAPA charges. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal had contended that the sanction's validity could only be decided during the trial, a view echoed by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, the special judge reviewed the sanctioning procedure and found that UAPA charges could not be sustained due to the faulty sanction. Shivade had also pointed out that the authority did not comply with the mandatory safeguard of an additional review committee required under law since Dec 31, 2008. The prosecution argued that since the crime occurred in Sept 2008, the earlier 2004 provision-without the second review-was applicable. But the Supreme Court clarified in 2023 that the UAPA's procedural safeguards during sanction are mandatory.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
17 years on, all seven accused acquitted in Malegaon blast case
Synopsis A special NIA court acquitted all seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court cited a lack of evidence. The blast killed six and injured over 100. Victims' lawyer will appeal the verdict. The court noted the prosecution failed to prove the case. PTI From left: Sameer Kulkarni, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Ajay Rahirkar Mumbai: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Thursday acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, citing lack of evidence. The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, around 9:25 pm in Malegaon, Maharashtra, killed six people and injured 101. The case has remained one of the most high-profile terror investigations in the country, marked by controversy, political debate, and has been under legal scrutiny. Advocate Shahid Nadeem who represented the victims said they will file an independent appeal before the Bombay High Court after reviewing the judgement. ".. the victims continue to suffer from the trauma they experience, and the special NIA court's decision to grant the accused the benefit of the doubt indicates the agency's inability to prose cute effectively," Nadeem said. Special Judge AK Lahoti, delivering the verdict, said the prosecution had 'failed to prove the case' and that the accused 'deserved the benefit of doubt.' 'There has been a grave incident against society,' the judge noted, 'but the court cannot convict merely on moral grounds.' While acquitting Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, the court held there was no credible evidence to establish that she owned the motorcycle allegedly used in the blast. It also noted that she had renounced material possessions and adopted a spiritual life two years before the incident. "The serial number of the chassis was not completely recovered by the forensic experts and, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the bike belonged to her," the court observed. On Purohit, the court said that it found no proof that he sourced RDX or assembled the explosive. The court also cleared the Hindu rightwing outfit Abhinav Bharat of any involvement, stating there was no evidence linking the group to terrorist activity. "There is no evidence that Abhinav Bharat was used for terror activity. Material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has been unsuccessful in proving the meetings took place (for conspiracy)," the court said. The case was initially probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which named 11 accused and three absconders under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), attributing the attack to Abhinav Bharat. In 2011, the probe was transferred to the NIA, which registered a fresh case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and MCOCA. During its investigation, the agency flagged serious discrepancies in the ATS's evidence, calling the earlier probe riddled with gaps and inconsistencies. A supplementary chargesheet filed by the NIA in 2016 named ten individuals, including Purohit and Major Ramesh Upadhyaya. However, charges against Sadhvi Pragya and three others were dropped for lack of evidence. Over the course of the trial, 323 prosecution witnesses and eight defence witnesses were examined. The court reviewed more than 10,800 documents and 400 seized articles. Nearly 40 prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
