Talks with tribal associations successful, bandh called off
Paderu (ASR District): Negotiations between ASR district collector AS Dinesh Kumar and various tribal associations demanding the implementation of G.O. Ms. No. 3 concluded successfully on Saturday. The tribal groups, who had been on strike for the past 24 hours demanding that vacancies in tribal areas be filled exclusively with tribal candidates, agreed to call off their bandh following two rounds of discussions held at the District Collectorate.
The collector clarified that the Supreme Court had declared G.O. Ms. No. 3 as unconstitutional, necessitating a review and revision of the recruitment policies in agency areas post-verdict. He explained that the state government is currently reevaluating ways to ensure justice for tribal communities without violating the legal directives of the apex court.
Referring to the recently announced Mega DSC-2025 for teacher recruitment, the Collector stated that reservations were allotted based on the general roster system due to the legal constraints following the Supreme Court judgment.
He assured that the government is actively exploring alternate legal avenues to uphold the spirit of G.O. 3 and provide fair opportunities for tribal candidates in agency regions. District in-charge Minister Gummadi Sandhyarani had also reiterated the government's commitment to tribal welfare in a recent ITDA general body meeting and through a public video statement, he said.
Additionally, Tribal Welfare Department Secretary MM Naik, currently touring Rampachodavaram, promised to take up the matter with the government and provide clarity within three to four days, the Collector added.
In light of the inconvenience caused to the general public, including small traders and the middle class, due to the bandh, the Collector appealed for its withdrawal. The tribal association leaders agreed, marking an end to the protest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Vidyadas Baba takes charge as Anjanadri temple's chief priest
Gangavathi (Koppal): Vidyadas Baba has taken charge as the chief priest of the Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Anjanadri Hill in Chikka Rampur village, a location considered sacred as Lord Hanuman's birthplace. Following his petition to the Supreme Court challenging his dismissal and the temple's acquisition, the court issued a notice to the state govt on May 27, instructing him to continue conducting the temple's puja and karmic activities. Upon his arrival at Anjanadri, Vidyadas addressed the gathered devotees, proclaiming that the truth was victorious. He said the temple premises will be kept clean, and religious activities, including Sanskrit Pathshala, Homa Havan and Hanuman Chalisa chanting, will be organised regularly. Additionally, a special puja for Anjaneya will occur every Saturday, with free food provided to the devotees. The dispute began in 2018 when the state govt attempted to place the Anjanadri Temple under the Muzrai department's control using the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997. This action faced strong opposition from Vidyadas, whose family maintained the temple's religious practices for over 120 years following the Ramanandi tradition. On May 27, the Supreme Court instructed the state govt to retain Vidyadas as chief priest, allowing him to continue his religious duties and reside in the Mandir room. This decision temporarily halted the govt's takeover plans and reinforced the High Court's 2023 interim order permitting his continued service. The Supreme Court stated that interference with the Pandit's removal or religious practices would face serious consequences. While acknowledging the Muzrai department's administrative role, it upheld Vidyadas and his family's right to conduct worship undisturbed, ensuring their accommodation and basic needs at the premises. Before 2018, the Kishkinda Trust and Pandit family managed the mandir independently without govt involvement. The Koppal deputy commissioner's 2018 order transferred administrative control to the govt under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997. The writ petition lodged by Vidyadas is awaiting resolution in the Karnataka high court. The order from the Supreme Court functions as a provisional directive, compelling compliance with the earlier orders of the high court and advising the state govt against any breaches.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Kiren Rijiju starts speaking with political parties for impeachment motion against HC Judge Yashwant Varma
New Delhi [India], June 3 (ANI): Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has started speaking with various political parties for an impeachment motion against High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the next Parliament Session, government sources said on Tuesday. The Supreme Court had constituted an inquiry committee following allegations of 'burnt cash' found at a storeroom of Justice Varma's residence when he was a Judge of the Delhi High Court. The in-house inquiry committee submitted its report on the issue last month, which has since been forwarded to the Prime Minister and the President of India. 'The Parliamentary Affairs Minister has started speaking to all parties for impeachment motion against HC judge Yashwant Varma,' a source said. On May 4, a panel of judges tasked with conducting an internal inquiry into allegations of cash being discovered at Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence submitted its report to the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna. According to an official communication from the Supreme Court, the three-member committee, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka concluded its investigation and presented its findings in a report dated May 3. The Chief Justice of India constituted this committee on March 22 to examine the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the High Court of Delhi. On April 5, Justice Yashwant Varma was sworn in as a judge of the Allahabad High Court under unusual and contentious circumstances. CPI general secretary D Raja had said on Wednesday that credibility of judiciary needs to be restored and his party will support the action against Justice Varma. 'Let them bring the impeachment motion. The Judiciary should understand that it has to work within the framework of the Constitution... To restore the credibility of our judiciary, there must be some strong action. We will support the impeachment motion. But the point is, when will it be brought? We raised several critical questions about the money found in the judge's residence, but concrete action has been delayed... Our party will participate in the debate before the Parliament when this issue is discussed,' Raja told ANI. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar had last month referred to the cash-discovery row, saying there is no FIR to date. 'We're confronted with the jarring reality. A judge's residence in Lutyens Delhi had burnt notes. There is no FIR to in the country is now thinking whether this will be washed off or fade with time, and they are really concerned. How come the criminal justice system was not operationalised as it would have been done for every other individual?... This issue for which people are waiting with bated breath, the money trail, its source, its purpose,' Dhankhar said at an event in the national capital. 'Did it pollute the judicial system? Who are the bigger sharks? We need to find out. Already two months have gone by. An investigation is required to be conducted with expedition. So is the case with the registration of an FIR. I do hope and believe that the Supreme Court acted the very best so far because it had a legacy issue of judgments imparted in the nineties,' he added. He lauded some of the steps taken by the Supreme Court. 'But now is the time to take a call. Partly the confidence has been restored by Justice Khanna. When you put in public domain documentation which people thought will never be shown to them. That was a big step by him to project accountability and transparency. If democratic values have to prosper, I am sure this is a test case. There must be a swift investigation by those concerned with the investigation,' the Vice President said. (ANI)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
A question Albert Camus asked faces the judiciary even today
The death penalty hides behind a veneer of righteousness, suggesting that justice is somehow always clear and definitive in a society that is without blame or blemish. As to the necessity to establish a precedent, the secret manner in which the state conducts executions at night undermines its assertion that these acts may function to dissuade the populace from similar criminal behaviour. However, courts in most countries harbour scepticism about such philosophising, as they realise that if criminal law is the middle child of jurisprudence, then the law governing punishments is its illegitimate offspring. India's approach has, for long, been defined by the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, which refers to the premise that the death penalty should be reserved for the most egregious and heinous crimes where no other punishment would suffice. While the famous Bachan Singh (1980) case introduced this doctrine, it has had antecedents. Justice V R Krishna Iyer aptly observed in the Rajendra Prasad (1979) case that the use of the punishment is on the belief that 'social defence against murderers is best insured in the short run by caging them, but in the long run, the real run, by transformation through re-orientation of the inner man by many methods including neuro-techniques of which we have a rich legacy… It is cheaper to hang than to heal. But Indian life—any human life—is too dear to be swung dead save in extreme circumstances'. Courts have used the doctrine in situations usually marked by extreme depravity and barbaric manner in which the crimes are perpetrated, coupled with the accused's absence of remorse. In Aloke Nath Dutta (2006), the Supreme Court acknowledged that 'what would constitute a rarest of rare case' was to be determined on the basis of the facts of each case, even though 'different criterions have been adopted by different benches of this court, although the offences are similar in nature'. The Supreme Court has affirmed death sentences on a number of occasions partly on the basis of lack of remorse, while simultaneously emphasising on the significance of reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as primary goals of the criminal justice system. In Mohd Arif (2014), while admitting a lack of cogency when it came to sentencing guidelines, the court quoted Immanuel Kant to acknowledge that the punishment was in itself the end: 'judicial punishment can never serve merely as a means to further another good, whether for the offender himself or for the society, but must always be inflicted on him for the sole reason that he has committed a crime'. However, as Kant asserts in The Metaphysics of Morals, such a situation subjects the principle of justice to a calculation of interest and, consequently, to the assessment of a price. Ideally, justice should not be regarded as a price to be paid but as invaluable, existing beyond any form of calculation. It must be seen as being beyond even the value of life itself. Justice, after all, transcends sentimentalities—and, for that matter, existence. Maybe we are not there yet. As the recent 'artistic death' sentences lashed out by our courts would prove, we are very irascible about our sentimentalities and liberal with labelling. Or as Camus puts it, 'in our society, any man who doesn't cry at his mother's funeral is liable to be condemned to death'. (Views are personal) (saaisudharsans@ Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy | Advocate, Madras High Court
