13 ashram schools, 9 tribal hostels under ITDA administration in Nandyal, says Collector
In Nandyal, Collector Rajakumari Ganiya said that as many as 13 ashram schools and nine tribal hostels were under the administration of the Integrated Tribal Development Authority (ITDA) in the district, while the State government was making continuous efforts to strengthen the infrastructure. She urged the parents of the dominant Chenchu community to prioritise the education of their children, avoid child marriages, and utilise government welfare schemes and health camps.
In Chittoor, Collector Sumit Kumar said that ₹75 crore was allocated for development of infrastructure in SC/ST hamlets. He announced the granting of fishing rights to 50 families under the ROFR Act and land titles to 22 Yanadi families. The Collector informed the target group to directly approach his office with grievances and make use of the welfare schemes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
CM Siddaramaiah says Karnataka outspending Centre on Bengaluru metro
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Sunday (August 10, 2025) said the State has been spending more than the Centre on Bengaluru's metro network, "even though the project is meant to be jointly funded", as he and Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared the stage at the foundation-laying ceremony for Phase-3. PM Modi in Bengaluru: Follow LIVE updates on August 10, 2025 Speaking at the event, also attended by Union Ministers Manohar Lal Khattar and Ashwini Vaishnaw, and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, Siddaramaiah said the metro is to be funded equally by the Centre and the State as per the agreement, but "the state is spending more on this project." While acknowledging the Centre's technical and financial assistance, he noted that much of it comes in the form of loans and equity, which the state must repay with interest. "So far, ₹3,987 crore has been refunded," he said. State-Centre share According to the chief minister, 96.10 km of metro lines have been completed, with the State spending ₹25,387 crore and the Centre ₹7,468.86 crore. 'The 19.15 km Yellow Line, built at Rs 7,160 crore, will benefit 7.5 lakh passengers daily. Currently, nine lakh people use the metro, and the number is expected to rise to 12.5 lakh once the Yellow Line is operational,' he said. Siddaramaiah added Bengaluru's rapid growth and heavy traffic made the metro essential. The network is planned to expand to 220 km by 2030, serving 30 lakh daily passengers. Phases 1, 2, 2A, and 2B have been completed; Phase-3's foundation has been laid, and Phase-3A will begin once the Centre grants clearance. Metro-4 will cover 53 km. He also urged the PM to extend Karnataka the same priority given to Maharashtra and Gujarat, and thanked him for launching the Bengaluru–Belagavi Vande Bharat train.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
