logo
Best of BS Opinion: Patching roads, not rerouting paths

Best of BS Opinion: Patching roads, not rerouting paths

Have you ever noticed there's a kind of optimism in repair work? The street is cracked, the foundation crumbles. The older cement pieces long gave way, cracked, uneven, almost forgotten. But someone is out there laying new bricks, hopeful that the next layer will hold. Today's stories speak to that quiet but persistent hope, of fixing broken systems, salvaging old promises, and forging ahead on damaged ground. Whether in politics, trade, law, or narrative, the road forward is uneven but we need to build anyway. Let's dive in.
Take Bangladesh. In the name of reform, its interim government is simply laying old bricks with new slogans. Mohammed Yunus's regime, born out of street protests against Sheikh Hasina, is now banning her party and splintering the democratic space even further. The economy teeters as investor confidence shrinks and India slams the trade door shut. And yet, New Delhi's own diplomacy has been marked by inconsistency, first embracing Hasina's iron grip, now sulking in silence, highlights our first editorial. Rebuilding trust will take more than strategic silence; it'll need a path paved with honesty, accountability, and open dialogue.
Closer home, a university professor is under arrest for suggesting that we match symbolic applause with real protections. Ali Khan Mahmudabad's case exposes how easily our institutions treat cautionary critique as hostility, notes our second editorial. The irony? His words about unity have been twisted into grounds for criminal charges, while louder, divisive voices walk free. In the government's zeal to control the narrative, it has cracked the very bricks it claims to protect.
Meanwhile, India's trade tools are turning on their own. As Laveesh Bhandari writes, Quality Control Orders, designed to filter out subpar imports, are becoming stealth weapons against competition. Rather than lifting domestic capability, they're shielding big players, bruising small ones, and denying consumers the variety and affordability they deserve.
And if we peek into insolvency law, the cracks run deep. Rajeswari Sengupta unpacks the Bhushan Power and Steel case, where the Supreme Court's liquidation order has thrown five years of resolution into the bin. Instead of building faith in the system, institutional lapses have left investors watching their bricks crumble.
Even storytelling isn't immune. Chintan Girish Modi's review of The Storypreneur's Playbook by Nitin Babel and Prateek Roy Chowdhury, offers a hero's journey for entrepreneurs, but one where most of the heroes are men, and the path feels too clean, too narrow, for today's complex terrain.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds
SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds

Hindustan Times

time15 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). The Tamil Nadu government had described the Centre's move as 'coercive tactics' to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 48 lakh students in the state being adversely impacted due to the withholding of the fund, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request, saying: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other policy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 43.9 lakh students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds

The Hindu

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.'s plea against Centre over education funds

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over ₹2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025. A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the State government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the Bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education, invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more States, or between one or more States. The State government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff State unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the State are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the State government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "₹2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6% per annum on the "principal sum of ₹2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60% share amounted to ₹2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the State. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Also read: How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of Madras Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds

Time of India

time40 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over education funds

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over Rs 2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the state government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government 's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education , invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more states, or between one or more states. Live Events The state government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff state unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the state are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the state government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "Rs 2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6 per cent per annum on the "principal sum of Rs 2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of Rs 3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60 per cent share amounted to Rs 2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the state. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store