J&K LG Manoj Sinha sacks three government employees for alleged anti-national activities
The official order stated that the Lieutenant Governor is satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry and dismissed the trio from services with immediate effect.
The Lt Governor has so far sacked over 70 government employees in J&K for their alleged anti-national activities by invoking Article 311 of Constitution of India.
Under the proviso (C) of Article 311(2), the government is empowered to terminate an employee without recourse to the normal procedure if it is satisfied that his/her retention in public service is prejudicial to the security of the state.
After the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A and bifurcation of J&K state into two Union Territories by the centre on August 5, 2109, the J&K administration has gone tough against its employees in the Union Territory.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Census 2027 is BJP's plan to reduce Tamil Nadu's parliamentary seats: Stalin
After officials of the Union government on Wednesday said that the long-delayed census will be carried out in two phases before March 1, 2027, Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK president MK Stalin said that the Constitution of India mandates that the delimitation exercise must follow the first census after 2026. 'The BJP has now delayed the census to 2027, making their plan clear to reduce Tamil Nadu's parliamentary representation. I had warned about this. It is now unfolding,' Stalin said. He further said that Tamil Nadu's main opposition AIADMK led by Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) 'is not just silent but complicit in this betrayal. It's now clear that he has surrendered to Delhi's domination.' He made the remarks while referring to the Dravidian party joining hands with the BJP in April, 19 months after they split, to fight the 2026 assembly elections together. In March, Stalin led a joint action committee (JAC) comprising the chief ministers of four states and political parties from three others calling for a fair delimitation. They said that the delimitation based on exercise would penalise southern states like them that had brought the population under control. The JAC urged the Centre to extend the freeze on the delimitation on parliamentary constituencies by another 25 years, upping the ante on a contentious exercise that can widen the chasm between India's northern and southern regions. The meeting had representatives from seven states, including chief ministers of Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Punjab and Kerala, and the deputy chief minister of Karnataka. Bharat Rashtra Samithi working chief KT Rama Rao also attended the meeting while Biju Janata Dal chief Naveen Patnaik joined virtually. 'The people of Tamil Nadu are united as one in their demand for a fair Delimitation,' Stalin said late on Wednesday. 'We need clear answers from the Union government.' The next meeting of the JAC will be held in Hyderabad. At the heart of the spiralling controversy is the issue of delimitation – originally scheduled for 2026 – which redefines the number of representatives a state sends to the Lok Sabha on the basis of population. A 2019 analysis by Milan Vaishnaw and Jamie Hintson of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, projected that such an exercise could see the overall strength of the Lok Sabha rising to 848, with Uttar Pradesh alone seeing its tally increase from the current 80 to 143 by 2026. In contrast, Tamil Nadu, which currently sends 39 representatives, could see the number rise to just 49. Kerala, which sends 20, would see no change at all. The 42nd amendment to the Constitution in 1976 froze delimitation based on the 1971 census, to promote family planning and population control. Then, in 2001, the 84th Amendment to the Constitution extended the freeze until 2026. When the delimitation happened in 2008, the total number of seats remained the same but the constituency boundaries were redrawn.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court denies relief to Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army
Observing that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in a defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army. Rejecting Mr. Gandhi's plea challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on May 29 said the trial court was right to summon the Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 'No doubt over the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam (Supra) and Kaushal Kishore (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case,' the Court noted. The matter pertains to a case filed against Mr. Gandhi by a former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that his statements, given after a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. The remarks were made by Mr. Gandhi during the Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Also read: Rahul Gandhi's surrender barb insult of armed forces, says BJP The plea quoted Mr. Gandhi as allegedly saying, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometers of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know.' The lower court in Lucknow had in February summoned Mr. Gandhi in the case, following which the Congress leader approached the High Court. In his plea, Mr. Gandhi said the complainant was not an officer of the Indian Army and hence the defamation case did not hold water. While rejecting the contention of the Congress leader, the High Court noted that under Section 199(1) the Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an 'aggrieved person' if they are impacted by the offence.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Teachers' body moves HC against edu dept's rationalisation orders
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh Vidyalayin Shikshak Karmachari Sangh, along with 34 teachers, has challenged two state govt orders dated April 28, 2025, and Aug 2, 2024, in the High Court. The petitioners contend that the govt's ongoing rationalisation process for schools and teachers violates established norms. Counsel Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, representing the matter for the petitioners, said that the move to approach the court came after their protests against the initial orders did not receive a positive response from the govt. The petitioners claim the state govt's orders are arbitrary, illegal, and were issued without proper authority. They highlight a decision by the state council of ministers on July 9, 2024, regarding the rationalisation of schools and teachers. However, they allege that the school education department secretary subsequently issued instructions and guidelines for this process without legal authority. Citing Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the petition argues that all executive actions of a state govt must be expressed in the name of the governor. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trading CFD dengan Teknologi dan Kecepatan Lebih Baik IC Markets Mendaftar Undo As the challenged orders were not issued in the governor's name, the petitioners assert they are not valid state govt orders and are therefore unenforceable. The petitioners have referred to a judgment by the Chhattisgarh high court in the case of Shitala Diwan Vs. State of C. G. and Ors., decided on January 24, 2017. According to the petitioners, the orders mandate the merger of primary schools with middle schools, and both primary and middle schools with higher secondary schools when co-located. This merger, they argue, would lead to headmasters in primary and middle schools being reassigned as teachers, thereby reducing the number of sanctioned headmaster posts as per the Chhattisgarh School Shiksha Sewa (Shaikshik evam Prashasnik Samvarg) Bharti Tatha Padonnati Niyam, 2019. They contend this makes the orders illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioners also pointed out that the amalgamation would reduce the total number of schools below sanctioned and approved figures, without separate orders for such changes. They added that the new orders would disrupt the Balwadi scheme, which runs alongside primary schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the New Education Policy, 2020, as regular school teachers are engaged in Balwadi activities. They also highlighted that many teachers engaged as Cluster Academy Centre coordinators, overseeing various schools and coordination, have been overlooked in the new orders, leading to conflicts. Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that the rationalisation proposed in the orders is subject-wise, which they argue is futile and contrary to the Niyam, 2019, as the subject-wise posting of teachers was amended and deleted in the 2019 rules. The petitioners have therefore filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders issued by the school education department secretary, deeming them to be without authority of law.
