SC allows UGC to notify draft regulations on ragging, sexual harassment, discrimination
Live Events
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to notify the draft regulations 2025 which deal with ragging, sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, disability, among other biases in institutions of higher learning. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh took note of a March 24 verdict, which considered the cases of suicides among students in such institutions and constituted a national task force (NTF) to address the mental health concerns of students to prevent such incidents."In light of this, we deem it appropriate to clarify that UGC may proceed with the finalisation of the draft regulations 2025 and may notify the same," the bench said. The regulations, the court said, as held by this court in the case of Amit Kumar (March 24 verdict) operate in addition to the NTF's recommendations.The bench was hearing a PIL which said pending the NTF's recommendations and consideration by the top court, the petitioners or any other public spirited person should be at liberty to move an appropriate plea in the pending proceedings to suggest the suitable addition or deletion in the regulations to be notified by the UGC.The top court said it goes without saying such suggestions will be considered.Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the mothers of students Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who allegedly died by suicide after facing caste-based discrimination, said the UGC had merged the guidelines for sexual harassments, ragging and discrimination.While Vemula, a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University died on January 17, 2016, Tadvi, a student at TN Topiwala National Medical College, died on May 22, 2019, after she was subjected to purported discrimination by three doctors in her college.Jaising had a heated debate with solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Centre and the UGC, on the "interruptions during her arguments". She said the old regulations gave a very detailed description of what was discrimination."All those have been done away with in the proposed new regulations," she said.Mehta, however, said since there was a verdict of the top court by a coordinate bench on March 24, the ongoing process of the NTF which was headed by former apex court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat, should not be disturbed.The court said if the proposed regulations were enacted, the NTF would have an opportunity to examine them and make its own recommendations on in case of shortcomings.The top court passed the order on an intervention application filed in a PIL filed in 2019.The UGC was previously ordered to notify draft regulations to ensure no caste-based discrimination happened with students in the central, state, private and deemed universities and asked for data on equal opportunity cells in compliance with the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations) 2012.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Cash row: Congress seeks SC report on allegations against Justice Varma
The Congress has asked the government to share with it the report of a Supreme Court-appointed committee that probed graft allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of his impeachment before the Monsoon session of Parliament, party sources said on Thursday. The government, however, is yet to respond, the sources said. Several burnt sacks containing cash were allegedly discovered at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire broke out there in March, when he was a Delhi High Court judge. Though the judge, who was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has initiated discussions with all political parties to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21. The Congress sources said the party has asked Rijiju to share the report of the committee so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of impeachment. The minister is yet to get back to the Congress, they said. Last week, Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving the impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said the government wants the exercise to be a "collaborative effort". According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Rijiju, however, has said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said earlier. The minister had said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. Following the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry, former CJI Sanjeev Khanna is believed to have prodded Varma to resign but he dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Former CJI Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
In CM Himanta Sarma's black and white ‘anti-foreigner' drive, how a 1950 law's greys fit in
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has said that his government has decided to bring into action a 1950 law to 'push back' into Bangladesh any people whom district commissioners in their respective areas 'prima facie find' to be foreigners, without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs). While doing so, he invoked a key Supreme Court judgment from October 2024, saying that the apex court 'empowered' the state to pursue this course of action. This announcement comes at a time when the state is already in the process of 'pushing back' people declared foreigners by FTs, having deported hundreds through an informal process in the past three weeks. The 1950 law that Sarma was referring to is the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act. A look at the extent to which it has been implemented in the past, where does it feature amidst the tangle of various citizenship processes in Assam, and what the Supreme Court said about it: The IEAA was a legislation drafted by the Centre – coming into effect on March 1, 1950 – following pressure from the Assam government at the time for measures to check migration from then East Pakistan in the years following Partition. Migration into the region was already a key political issue by then, as it is now, 75 years later. The Union government drafted the law as citizenship was a Central subject, and delegated powers to the state to expel 'undesirable' migrants – the legislation was originally even called the Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act. In the uncertain socio-political aftermath of Partition, the Act sought to distinguish between migrants and refugees, stating that it shall not apply to any person displaced 'on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan'. The Act added that if the Centre was of the opinion that the stay of any person in Assam – who was ordinarily resident of any place outside India and had come either before or after the commencement of the Act – 'is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', it could direct such a person to 'remove himself or themselves' from Assam or India 'within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' The IEAA said any officer of the Union government or Assam government could exercise this power. Its implementation turned out to be short-lived. In his book The Quest for Modern Assam, historian Arupjyoti Saikia wrote that at the same time as this Act was finalised, parts of Lower Assam saw rioting between Hindus and Muslims, with anywhere between 40,000 and 1 lakh Muslims from these areas fleeing to East Pakistan. The Act hence posed problems for many Bengali Muslims who originally were from Assam, Saikia wrote, adding. '… when an old resident was asked to leave his residence in an Upper Assam town within three days (of such an order being issued to the resident) Nehru was furious'. This incidentally also coincided with the pact signed between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Pakistani counterpart Liaquat Ali Khan to ensure the security and rights of minorities in the respective territories of Pakistan and India. On April 10, two days after the pact was signed, Nehru wrote to Assam Chief Minister Gopinath Bardoloi to stop all action under the IEAA, saying the Pakistani PM had also raised the Act in their talks. '… it would be most unwise to take any action under that Act (the IEAA) now. Our main purpose is to concentrate on getting full control (over) the situation in East and West Bengal and Assam and to remove the sense of fear from the minorities. Everything else should be subordinated to this. If we cannot succeed in this, then all kinds of other problems will overwhelm us,' Nehru wrote to Bordoloi. According to different accounts, the numbers of those affected by the IEAA remained a couple of hundred. In 1983, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act came into force, with its provisions stating that it would have overriding effects over the 1950 Act. The IMDT Act laid out the process of determination of the nationality of a suspected illegal immigrant through tribunals and, importantly, put the onus of proving the nationality or otherwise of the person concerned on the complainant. More than 20 years after the IMDT Act was passed, the IEAA saw a revival after the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional. In a 2005 judgment, the Court held that the IEAA, along with the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967 – all of which the IMDT Act had been given overriding powers over – 'shall apply to the state of Assam'. The Court also said that all pending cases in this regard be shifted to FTs operating on the lines of the Foreigners' Tribunal Order 1964, thus shifting the burden of proof to the accused. FTs are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them – usually referred by the border police or if listed as 'D-voters' or 'Doubtful Voters' in electoral rolls – is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners have the option to appeal in the Gauhati High Court or the Supreme Court. In 1985, in line with the Assam Accord, the Citizenship Act had been amended to include Section 6A, which essentially established March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date after which anyone entering the state would be considered an 'illegal immigrant'. The constitutional validity of this was challenged in 2012, on the grounds that there could not be different cut-off dates for Indian citizenship in Assam and in the rest of India, for which it is July 1948. The petition also urged that 1951 be established as the cut-off date for inclusion in a National Register of Citizens to be prepared for Assam, instead of 1971. Hearing the plea, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman framed 13 questions on Section 6A for deliberation by a Constitutional Bench. One of these was on the IEAA. In 2024, the Constitutional Bench said that the petitioners' case was that, in the case of Assam, the IEEA should override the Foreigners' Act, 1946 – which ordinarily governs the entry, stay and departure of foreigners in India – and Section 6A, presuming a conflict between these legislations. The Court said that all these enactments can be read 'harmoniously'. By a 4-1 majority, the Court also upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 6A. But noting that the restriction of immigration post-1971 had 'not been given proper effect', issued a set of six directions, including: 'The provisions of the IEAA 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' As per CM Sarma, the Supreme Court order affirmed that the long-defunct IEAA remained in force and it empowered the state to 'push back' people that district commissioners 'prima facie find' to be illegal immigrants, without referring them to FTs for scrutiny and determination of the same. Senior Advocate at the Gauhati High Court and Congress member Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Chaudhury expressed the apprehension that the implementation of this would be 'arbitrary' and result in 'a large-scale law and order situation'. 'The 1950 Act had been introduced in an extraordinary situation to deal with a particular purpose. It also categorically mentions that the presence of the persons concerned should be found to be detrimental to the interests of the country. But there was still arbitrariness built in, and the FTs had been introduced to deal with the arbitrariness,' Chaudhary said. He added that citizenship in India was overall determined by the Citizenship Act. 'The 1950 Act continues to exist alongside all these frameworks and provisions… By interpreting things in this way, the CM is trying to bypass all legal procedures for the harassment of a particular community. These actions cannot be taken on a whim, they have to be through settled procedure,' the advocate said. Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Anas Tanwir also said that 'any expulsion without following the FT process would be contrary to law'. 'As the court states, these legislation are operating in different spheres. Because the court is saying that they can be read harmoniously doesn't mean that the Act can be used to the exclusion of existing processes and for expulsion,' he said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
With Trump as ally, El Salvador's President ramps up crackdown on dissent
Days before his arrest outside his daughter's house in the outskirts of San Salvador, constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya called Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele a dictator and a despot on live TV. This week, lawyer Jaime Quintanilla stood outside a detention facility in El Salvador's capital with a box of food and clothes for his client, unsure if Anaya would ever be released. The Saturday arrest of Anaya, a fierce critic of Bukele, marks the latest move in what watchdogs describe as a wave of crackdown on dissent by the Central American leader. They say Bukele is emboldened by his alliance with US President Donald Trump, who has not only praised him but avoided criticising actions human rights defenders, international authorities and legal experts deem authoritarian. Authorities in El Salvador have targeted outspoken lawyers like Anaya, journalists investigating Bukele's alleged deals with gangs and human rights defenders calling for the end of a three-year state of emergency, which has suspended fundamental civil rights. Some say they have been forced to flee the country. They're trying to silence anyone who voices an opinion professionals, ideologues, anyone who is critical now they're jailed. Quintanilla said. It's a vendetta. Bukele's office did not respond to a request for comment. 'I don't care if you call me a dictator' Observers see a worrisome escalation by the popular president, who enjoys extremely high approval ratings due to his crackdown on the country's gangs. By suspending fundamental rights, Bukele has severely weakened gangs but also locked up 87,000 people for alleged gang ties, often with little evidence or due process. A number of those detained were also critics. Bukele and his New Ideas party have taken control of all three branches of government, stacking the country's Supreme Court with loyalists. Last year, in a move considered unconstitutional, he ran for reelection, securing a resounding victory. I don't care if you call me a dictator," Bukele said earlier this month in a speech. "Better that than seeing Salvadorans killed on the streets. In recent weeks, those who have long acted as a thorn in Bukele's side say looming threats have reached an inflection point. The crackdown comes as Bukele has garnered global attention for keeping some 200 Venezuelan deportees detained in a mega-prison built for gangs as part of an agreement with the Trump administration. 'Of course I'm scared' Anaya was detained by authorities on unproven accusations of money laundering. Prosecutors said he would be sent to relevant courts" in the coming days. Quintanilla, his lawyer, rejects the allegations, saying his arrest stems from years of vocally questioning Bukele. Quintanilla, a longtime colleague of Anaya, said he decided to represent his friend in part because many other lawyers in the country were now too afraid to show their faces. On Tuesday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed deep concern over Anaya's arrest. Anaya, 61, is a respected lawyer and commentator in El Salvador with a doctorate in constitutional law. He has criticized Bukele's crackdown on the gangs and Bukele stacking of El Salvador's high court. Last year, he was among those who unsuccessfully petitioned the country's top electoral authority to reject Bukele's re-election bid, saying it violated the constitution. Days before his arrest, Anaya railed on television against the detention of human rights lawyer Ruth Lopez, who last week shouted, They're not going to silence me, I want a public trial, as police escorted her shackled to court. Of course I'm scared, Anaya told the broadcast anchor. I think that anyone here who dares to speak out, speaks in fear. While some of Bukele's most vocal critics, like Anaya and Lopez, have been publicly detained, other human rights defenders have quietly slipped out of the country, hoping to seek asylum elsewhere in the region. They declined to comment or be identified out of fear that they would be targeted even outside El Salvador. Fear and an ally in Trump Last month, a protest outside of Bukele's house was violently quashed by police and some of the protesters arrested. He also ordered the arrest of the heads of local bus companies for defying his order to offer free transport while a major highway was blocked. In late May, El Salvador's Congress passed a foreign agents law, championed by the populist president. It resembles legislation implemented by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China to silence and criminalise dissent by exerting pressure on organisations that rely on overseas funding. Veronica Reyna, a human rights coordinator for the Salvadoran nonprofit Servicio Social Pasionista, said police cars now regularly wait outside her group's offices as a lingering threat. It's been little-by-little, Reyna said. Since Trump came to power, we've seen (Bukele) feel like there's no government that's going to strongly criticise him or try to stop him. Trump's influence extends beyond his vocal backing of Bukele, with his administration pushing legal boundaries to push his agenda, Reyna, other human rights defenders and journalists said. The US Embassy in El Salvador, which once regularly denounced the government's actions, has remained silent throughout the arrests and lingering threats. It did not respond to a request for comment. In its final year, the Biden administration, too, dialled back its criticism of the Bukele government as El Salvador's government helped slow migration north in the lead up to the 2024 election. On Tuesday, Quintanilla visited Anaya in detention for the first time since his arrest while being watched by police officers. Despite the detention, neither Anaya nor Quintanilla have been officially informed of the charges. Quintanilla worries that authorities will use wide ranging powers granted to Bukele by the state of emergency to keep him imprisoned indefinitely. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
