Ensure schemes' funds are strictly delivered to SCs, STs
Wanaparthy: The SC/ST Commission chairman, Bakki Venkataiah, on Tuesday directed the district administration to ensure that the funds and shares allocated under various development and welfare schemes implemented by the Central and State governments are strictly delivered to SCs and STs. During a visit to district, the SC/ST commission team conducted a district-level review meeting at the collectorate. Collector Adarsh Surabhi, SP R Giridhar, officials, members of the District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee, and association leaders participated in the meeting, which was chaired by Venkataiah.
In the meeting, the chairman inquired about the implementation of development and welfare schemes in the district by key departments of the Central and State governments, and whether SCs and STs were receiving their rightful share. He suggested that Citizen Rights Day should be observed regularly on the 30th of every month; an annual action plan should be prepared in advance. He emphasised that Citizen Rights meetings should not be symbolic, but be held in SC colonies or panchayat premises. Advance notice be given to SC/ST Vigilance and Monitoring Committee members and the media. He stated that these meetings should raise awareness among SCs and STs about the welfare schemes available to them and how to access them. He suggested identifying and resolving issues faced by SCs and STs.
Venkataiah insisted that a Vigilance and Monitoring Committee meeting be held every three months under the leadership of the collector. Failing this, action would be taken against the SC corporation officer. He warned that funds under the SC/ST Sub-Plan must be used solely for the uplift of SCs and STs; any diversion of the funds by any department would lead to strict action against the responsible officer.
Additional Collectors (Revenue) G Venkateshwarlu, (Local Bodies In-charge) Yadayya, commission members K. Neela Devi, Rambabu Naik, K. Lakshmi Narayana, J. Shankar, R. Praveen, ED SC Corporation Mallikarjun, DSP Venkateshwara Rao, CIs, SIs, tahsildars, VMC members, and association leaders attended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Delhi's ordinance to raise school fees is a preposterous move
The Delhi government recently issued a circular, which requires private unaided schools that have been granted land by government entities to obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) before raising their fees for the 2024-25 academic year. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta warned of action against private schools that have increased fees arbitrarily. She said: ... no school has any right to harass parents and children. They have no right to threaten children and hike fees abnormally. ….' It was strongly opposed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bhardwaj, who alleged that the state government had succumbed to pressure from private school lobbies by introducing a school fee ordinance without legislative oversight or public consultation. The Congress also opposed the 'ordinance' with the party's Delhi unit chief Devender Yadav blaming the BJP's decision 'to approve the ordinance without consulting stakeholders' as 'undemocratic' as it betrayed and stifled the voice of lakhs of students and their parents, 'who have been protesting against the arbitrary fee hike by private schools for months'. In a subsequent development many parents challenged the circular in the Delhi High Court. The circular has led to confusion and worries among parents, as many private schools have used these orders to almost double the tuition fees. The parents' group said that the High Court, by allowing such fee hikes without approval from the DoE, has gone against its own earlier decisions and also against the Supreme Court's past directions. The petitioners pointed out that allowing such fee increases without proper checks could lead to further misuse of power by private schools. Earlier judgments of SC: The Supreme Court had earlier this month criticised private schools in Delhi for hiking fees without prior government approval, particularly targeting schools constructed on government-allotted land, even as they were legally obligated to follow specific regulatory conditions. The SC noticed a violation of conditions and criticised that many elite private schools in Delhi operate on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) at concessional rates. A condition of the lease mandates that these schools obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) before increasing tuition or any other fees. The apex court observed that schools violated this lease condition by hiking fees unilaterally. It held that the state government should be accountable and transparent. In some other previous judgments (like Modern School v. Union of India, 2004), the SC held that education is not a commercial activity and fee structures must be reasonable. It reiterated that school fees should not become an economic barrier that undermines the Right to Education under Article 21A. Thus, the observations reinforce the Delhi government's authority to regulate private school fees, particularly those on public land. It also legitimises audits and penalties imposed by the Delhi Directorate of Education on non-compliant schools. Several schools may be required to refund excess fees and face restrictions on future hikes. The Supreme Court criticised schools that hike fees without government approval, especially when they occupy government-allotted land. Earlier in April, the government issued show-cause notices to 11 schools and initiated audits after uncovering widespread fee-hike abuses. Upholding Right to Education: Thus, the ordinary students now have legal recourse against arbitrary hikes, and their selection process may favour uninformed participants. While school representatives dominate decisions, the Delhi government claims penalties and committees could improve accountability and transparent fee structures. It is a democratic deficit as the ordinance bypassed legislative debate and public consultation, raising concerns about legitimacy and inclusivity. Fee hikes that occurred between April 1 and enforcement of the ordinance may remain unaddressed, leaving parents in limbo. Notice to the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has rightly issued notice to the Directorate of Education, the Delhi government, and the Action Committee for Unaided Recognised Private Schools regarding a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court. Unfortunately, this 'order' permitted private schools situated on government land to increase tuition fees without prior approval from the DOE. Will this 'order' order the possibility of education? It directly disturbs 'law and order'. The government should wait for the 'order'. This notice came in response to a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's April 2024 decisions, which allowed private schools built on government land in Delhi to increase their tuition fees without taking prior approval from the DoE. A vacation bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, took up the hearing. The bench was responding to a petition filed by the Naya Samaj Parents Association, a group representing parents of students studying in private schools. The Supreme Court on May 29 issued notice to the Delhi Director of Education in a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court that allowed the increase of fees by private unaided schools on government lands. Delhi govt ordinance promulgated: The state cabinet on June 11 approved the issue of the ordinance aimed at regulating the fee structure of private schools in the national capital. The ordinance, titled the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025, was ready to be forwarded to the President through the office of the Lieutenant-Governor for formal assent. Once enacted, it will operate retrospectively from April 1, 2025. Instead of empowering the common man, the ordinance 'empowers' the government, preferring to impose fines of up to ₹10 lakh per school for violating fee norms and to revoke a school's ability to propose further fee hikes. The question is whether this 'hurried' ordinance will regulate arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in the national capital. Will it indeed give major relief to lakhs of students studying in private schools and their parents in the city? Why the ordinance with a retrospective effect? The ordinance says that schools found charging fees more than the permitted limit will be mandated to reverse the hike and refund the surplus amount within 20 working days. Failure to do so will lead to escalating financial penalties. Specifically, the fine will double if the delay crosses 20 working days, triple after 40 days, and continue to rise with every 20-day interval. It was further added that 'for a first violation, the ordinance prescribes a monetary penalty ranging between ₹one lakh and ₹five lakh. In the event of repeated non-compliance, the fine may increase to between ₹two lakh and ₹10 lakh, depending on the severity and frequency of the offence. The ordinance claimed that it is designed to bring greater transparency and fairness to the fee structures adopted by private schools and provide relief to parents burdened by abrupt and arbitrary fee hikes. The Delhi and other states, too, must ensure that fee committees are transparent, diverse, and balanced school and parent representation. Violations are penalized, and past arbitrary fee hikes (April–June 2025) are properly redressed, and Legislative procedures and public consultations are honored in future amendments or laws. It's a case of misusing the power of promulgation of an ordinance and, in essence, violence against the right to education, unfortunately. (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Days after Azamgarh clash, SP MLA says BJP ‘escalated' tension; party calls it ‘baseless'
A CLASH between members of two communities in Azamgarh's Bamhour village recently, which prompted one community to put up posters declaring that their houses for sale, took a political turn on Monday when Samajwadi Party (SP) MLA Akhilesh accused the ruling BJP of 'escalating the matter by instigating one of the communities.' The BJP denied the allegations. The Azamgarh police on Monday arrested three more persons, bringing the total number of arrests in the case to 11, said a senior police officer. The incident took place on June 3 after objections were raised when youths from a particular community were seen recording videos and taking photographs from their rooftops of a marriage procession in which women were dancing. A clash erupted between the two communities, during which stones were pelted and sticks were used to assault one another. Members of both communities were injured, police said. MLA Akhilesh claimed that while the clash had broken out over playing of music on loudspeakers, a case has been registered against members of only one community. He alleged, 'After the incident, BJP workers and office-bearers from other areas reached the village and escalated the situation by inciting members of a community…' 'On June 12, people put up posters declaring their houses were for sale after being instigated by the BJP,' he claimed. Bamhour village falls under the Mubarakpur Assembly seat, with a major chunk of its residents engaged in agriculture. 'I visited the village twice after the incident and tried to convince the people. No one has sold their house or left the village,' claimed Akhilesh, adding that the posters have been removed. Akhilesh won the Assembly election from the Mubarakpur Assembly seat, under which Bamhour village falls. A senior police officer also said all the posters have been removed and no one has left the village or sold their house. Later in the day, BJP's Azamgarh district president D K Singh denied all the allegations levelled by the MLA, terming these as 'baseless'. He added that the prime accused in the case had fled after the incident and allegedly threatened people through social media, which prompted some local residents to put up posters. They approached police, after which the accused were arrested and the matter has since been resolved, claimed Singh. Police said some members of one of the groups involved in the June 3 clash suffered serious injuries and they, led by a local resident, Sandeep Kannojia, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, filed a complaint at the local police station. The case was registered under several charges, including voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder, and assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The SC/ST Act was also invoked.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Consider setting up permanent consumer courts: SC to Centre
Nagpur: The Supreme Court recently directed the central govt to create a permanent adjudicatory framework comprising full-time staff and presiding officers for consumer disputes in India. The Centre was directed to submit an affidavit in three months on the feasibility of setting up a permanent consumer tribunal or court. It emphasised that consumer forums cannot be run on temporary tenure-based appointments. "We would only implore upon it to appreciate the pressing need for a permanent structure," the bench noted. The court, invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, passed sweeping directions in a batch of appeals, while ruling on the legality and structure of consumer forums under the 2020 Rules. The SC directed that the new rules, to be notified within four months, must strictly follow earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases and include a fixed five-year tenure. It also ruled that the selection committee must have a judiciary-majority composition. No written exam or viva voce will be needed for appointing or reappointing presidents and judicial members of state and district commissions, while such a process will be required only for non-judicial posts, in consultation with respective state service commissions. The SC upheld that only serving or retired district judges would be eligible for the post of district commission presidents. Once the new rules are in place, all states must complete recruitment under them within four months. Striking a Constitutional note, the bench stated, "Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution," linking it with Articles 38, 39, and 47. It called consumer rights inalienable and remarked that consumer litigation is a form of public interest litigation, strengthening participatory democracy — a basic feature of the Constitution. The judgment also addressed three HC rulings from Bombay and Telangana concerning appointment procedures. It upheld the Bombay HC's decision to strike down parts of the 2020 Rules but modified certain aspects relating to reappointments and tenure clarifications. It also ruled that all serving appointees, whether selected before or after the Supreme Court's first ruling in the case in March 2023, may continue until the completion of fresh recruitment under the new rules. Tushar Mandlekar, assisted by Tejas Fadnavis, Astha Sharma and Anju Thomas, represented the original petitioner Mahendra Limaye, a Nagpur-based lawyer, while assistant solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the central govt. Limaye had approached Nagpur bench of Bombay HC challenging an advertisement issued in May this year for recruitment of members or president in district and state consumer commissions in Maharashtra. The HC order stated, "Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 is struck down on the ground that the same results in diluting the involvement of the judiciary in the process of appointment of the president and members of the state commission and the district commission. The said Rule is against the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench". The SC bench made it clear that existing appointees allowed to continue under this judgment will serve a four-year tenure, not the new five-year term. "We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset revamping the tenure of office in consumer fora," the judges observed.
