Affordable schooling should be top priority
The Telangana Private Schools and Junior Colleges Fee Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Draft Bill 2025 has been referred to a sub-committee. The draft has sound provisions, with a state-level commission as the main regulator supported by district-level committees. Unfortunately, as the bill is pending, this year's admissions took place with up to 60 percent higher fees, especially in Hyderabad. As reported in this newspaper, even pre-primary fees are hovering around ₹1-2 lakh in several schools on the pretext of digital upgrades and campus expansions. Given that many of them do not have the matching facilities, one cannot but conclude that it is mostly about milking a lucrative business. Recently, the Delhi government brought in an ordinance to regulate fee hikes after vociferous protests from parents. Whether it is Delhi or Telangana, quick-fixes would not work. We need effective laws and even more effective implementation.
A glance at the numbers tells a sad story. Telangana has about 22,000 government and 15,000 private schools; but 34 lakh students study in the latter and only 24 lakh in the former. If you couple it with the fact that 2,097 schools had zero enrolment in 2023-24, you would get the picture. The belief that education is a business for making profit must not be allowed to hold sway over public consciousness. In 2004, the Supreme Court had said education is not for profiteering. But we see several elected representatives running for-profit educational institutions. This is a conflict of interest and is, perhaps, one of the reasons why so many government schools are in a sorry shape. Ambitious development targets cannot be achieved unless children in every part of a state can access good education. It should be our top priority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refrains from interfering with ADGP's suspension
The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior IPS officer and additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest and requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The top court said the matter now warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, a senior officer of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after he was alleged to have played a part in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May, reportedly linked to an inter-caste marriage. The Madras High Court directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's latest submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, while allowing Jayaram the liberty to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered for his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer, while noting that Jayaram could always challenge the order. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave had clarified the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension…We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with court directions. Earlier this week, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court ordered Jayaram's arrest while hearing Moorthy's pre-arrest bail plea, slamming the alleged use of 'Kangaroo courts' and abuse of power.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Why Uttar Pradesh is making it harder for runaway couples to marry
Married couples in Uttar Pradesh can now only register their marriage in a district where at least one of the spouses or their parents usually live. Couples will also have to submit an affidavit from the purohit or priest who solemnised the wedding, containing their full details, along with a video recording of the ceremony. Moreover, an unregistered rent agreement will not be accepted as proof of residence. This is due to the notification of new, more stringent rules for the registration of marriages by the Uttar Pradesh government on June 6. The move, which makes it significantly harder for couples to marry without their families' consent, is a direct consequence of a judgement delivered by the Allahabad High Court on May 12. Crucially, the court clarified that these stringent requirements 'shall specifically apply to the registration of marriages involving runaway couples – i.e., those who have entered into a matrimonial alliance without the consent of their respective family members'. If family members are present, a marriage officer has the discretion to waive these conditions. The order effectively creates a separate, more stringent category of registration for couples that elope. This raises concerns about undermining the fundamental right of adults to choose their partners that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgement came from a single judge, Justice Vinod Diwakar, who clubbed together 125 similar petitions filed by couples seeking police protection from their families after marriage. However, instead of sticking to the core demand for protection, the court pivoted towards a sweeping inquiry into what it termed a 'systemic problem' of fraudulent marriages that required the court 'to establish a robust mechanism for thorough document verification'. Given the court had also found allegedly forged Arya Samaj documents, it ordered amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within six months to 'ensure stringent accountability of trusts and societies involved in solemnising and registering marriages' for the sake of 'the validity and sanctity of marriages.' Threat to the 'social fabric'? From the very first hearing in the case in July 2024, the court expressed deep concern over the authenticity of 'runaway marriages' and their impact on society. It noted in the judgement that many petitions for protection by married couples are based on 'fabricated marriage certificates and forged Aadhar Cards' and that such practices have set a 'disturbing precedent that threatens to adversely affect the social fabric of society.' The court made alarming claims: that in many cases, brides have been found to be minors and that men have entered these alliances without disclosing previous marriages, using 'fake certificates and morphed photographs'. Such unions, the court said, are not just a threat to the 'sanctity of marriage' but also facilitate 'human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and other social evils.' According to the court, '[t]he children involved suffer profound emotional and psychological trauma resulting from social instability, exploitation, coercion, manipulation, and interruption of their education.' Describing the marriages as 'clandestine unions', the judgment laments that they often result in 'families being torn apart by sudden and secretive alliances.' However, the court's conclusions are not backed by any data. The data that the judgement refers to is either inconclusive or does not directly support the court's claims. Data under scrutiny The court's primary concern seemed to stem from the unusually high number of marriage registrations in Ghaziabad. The judgment cited a report from the Inspector General of Registration showing that of the 1,00,156 marriages registered in Uttar Pradesh between August 2023 and August 2024, a staggering 29,022 were in Ghaziabad. Of these, over 19,000 were handled by a single sub-registrar's office. The court interprets this as evidence of a large-scale, organised fraud. However, the judgement makes a leap from high volume to proven fraud without presenting direct evidence linking the two. It does not consider alternative explanations for the high volume, such as Ghaziabad's accessibility for couples from across western UP or the relative ease of accessing marriage registration services in an urban hub vis-à-vis other parts of the state. The other key data point comes from a police verification report of 77 of the 125 petitions before the court. The report, submitted by the Prayagraj Commissioner of Police, found that in ten of these cases, the marriage certificates, purportedly from Arya Samaj organisations, were forged. This indicates a fraud rate of 13% within this small sample, which contradicts the judgement's claim that '[genuine] cases are relatively few compared to the large number of petitions based on fabricated documents and false claims.' The court also noted that after police verification was ordered of the identity and marriage of the petitioners before it, 'in almost 25% of the cases, the petitioners ceased to appear before the Court'. It implies that their non-appearance is an admission of guilt. However, it fails to consider other possibilities: the couples may have reconciled with their families, been intimidated into withdrawing or simply run out of the financial resources needed to pursue the case. The court has used these findings to justify new rules that will impact all eloping couples, including those whose documents may be genuine. The judgement does not address whether imposing such burdensome requirements on everyone is a proportionate response to the issue. The court also does not provide any rationale for making the registration requirements optional for couples whose family members are present during the registration, according to the discretion of the registrar. The underlying assumption – that marriages approved or arranged by families will not involve child marriages or use forged documents – is not supported by any data or reasoning in the judgement. Open probe Based on these findings, the court has not only framed new rules but had also in earlier orders in the matter greenlit a broad, open-ended police investigation into the functioning of organisations that solemnise such marriages in Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar and Prayagraj. In its final order, the court asked the police to prepare a 'comprehensive list of all trusts and societies performing marriages within the territorial jurisdiction of the districts of Gautam Buddha Nagar and Ghaziabad.' It further directed the police to conduct a 'thorough and discreet inquiry' into the activities and finances of these trusts, profile their key functionaries and identify the entire network of people who assist eloping couples. In response, police in Ghaziabad and Prayagraj have already registered 16 first information reports against various trusts and individuals for allegedly conducting fraudulent marriages and issuing forged marriage certificates. This raises concerns of judicial overreach and a witch-hunt against organisations that assist eloping couples – most of which are likely to be inter-caste unions – to marry. Justice denied? Another unusual aspect of the judgment is its final direction. After a lengthy examination of the alleged fraud, the court disposed of all 125 petitions by couples seeking police protection. The couples were simply directed to approach the local senior superintendent of police who, the court said, would verify their claims and then take 'appropriate remedial measures as deemed fit.' The order ignored the fact that if a direct application to the police were an effective solution, these couples would not have invested the time, money and risk to petition the High Court in the first place. By sending them back to the very authorities they sought to bypass, the court effectively denied them the protection they sought.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
SC put stop to 'bulldozer justice': Executive can't be judge, jury, says CJI
CJI BR Gavi NEW DELHI: Highlighting Supreme Court's contribution in the last 75 years to accelerate political, economic and social justice to the poor and marginalised, CJI B R Gavai on Thursday told an assembly of top judges of Italy how the top court recently banned "bulldozer justice" and prevented the executive from becoming the judge, jury and executioner. Gavai was referring to SC's judgment last year barring the executive from arbitrary demolition of houses of those accused of crime, bypassing the legal process, which violated citizens' fundamental right to shelter under Article 21. CJI B R Gavai was speaking at the Milan Court of Appeal on 'Role of Constitution in Delivering Socio-Economic Justice in a Country: Reflections from 75 Years of Indian Constitution". "The executive cannot become judge, jury and executioner all at once," the CJI said and quoted the judgment, which stated, "Construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights." "For an average citizen, construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future," the CJI further added. "As we look back on these 75 years, there is no doubt that the Indian Constitution has strived for change in the life of the common people. To summarise, several aspects of Directive Principles were made enforceable by reading or legislating them as a facet of fundamental rights," CJI Gavai said. "While Parliament took the lead by way of legislation and constitutional amendments, Supreme Court has consistently worked to transform socio-economic rights, ranging from education to livelihood, into enforceable fundamental rights, which were then given effect by Parliament," he added. The CJI added that the Constitution's journey in the past 75 years in delivering socio-economic justice "is a story of great ambition and important successes... the earliest initiatives undertaken by the Indian Parliament immediately after the adoption of the Constitution included land and agrarian reform laws and affirmative action policies for backward classes. The impact of these initiatives is clearly visible today". CJI Gavai, the second Dalit to become the head of India's judiciary, said, "Affirmative action policies in education, which sought to correct historical injustices and ensure representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes, have been a concrete expression of the Constitution's commitment to substantive equality and socio-economic justice." Because of these measures, he could become CJI, Gavai said, adding that he was a product of the very constitutional ideals that sought to democratise opportunity and dismantle the barriers of caste and exclusion.
