Latest news with #&Ors
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
A legal cap, a political promise, and the tribal future of Andhra Pradesh
Written by Jagannath Ambagudia The protest by tribal communities in Alluri Sitharama Raju district of Andhra Pradesh in the first week of May, demanding the restoration of the provision of 100 per cent reservation for tribal communities in schools located in scheduled areas, again evoked the debate on reservation policy in India. The protest drew the immediate attention of the Andhra Pradesh government. The provision, also known as Government Order No. 3 (GO No. 3), was struck down by the Supreme Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors v. State of AP & Ors (2000), citing the 50 per cent capping of reservation set in the Indra Sawhney case. However, this was not the first time the judiciary invalidated such provisions. The Supreme Court also rejected the review petition filed by the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as some tribal organisations. Notably, the current demands by the tribal communities come against the backdrop of the Telugu Desam Party's poll promises of restoring or replacing GO No. 3 with a similar order. Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu's latest announcement that his government is exploring various modalities of implementing 100 per cent reservation for local tribal communities in scheduled areas of the state must be read in this context. However, both the government's announcement and the erstwhile decision of the apex court to strike it down have broader implications for the tribal communities in the state. Such provisions prevent demographic changes in the scheduled areas. The growing presence of non-tribals in such areas can potentially reduce the numerical strength of tribal communities, which could subsequently open the ground for 'descheduling' in the long run. Descheduling takes away the control of natural resources such as land, water, and forest — the critical means of livelihood — from the tribal communities. Demographic changes could also lead to the de-reservation of assembly and parliamentary constituencies in the long run. The attempt to restore the executive order or compensate for it through alternative means could be a mechanism against such transitions. The 100 per cent reservation of tribal educators in the scheduled area also works as guardrails against 'stigmatisation'. It enhances sensitivity and helps tribal children to participate in the educational setups. Studies have revealed the dismal representation of tribal teachers in scheduled areas across the country. The indifferent attitude of teachers belonging to 'other' communities works against the interest of tribal children, who require much hand-holding at the initial stage. The presence of tribal teachers in the school system in scheduled areas can address language barriers and ease their learning process. These corrective measures can also potentially address the issue of enrolment ratio and drop-out rates in higher education among tribal communities. The Andhra Pradesh government reportedly intends to consider a proportionate representation of tribal teachers in schools in scheduled areas to avoid possible legal scrutiny. However, proportionate representation may not be as helpful, as indicated by the present practice of proportionality around the country. The concentration of management and decision-making power in the hands of non-tribal teachers/communities always works against tribal communities' interests. These efforts to restore 100 per cent reservation would also provide political dividends to the TDP in 19 assembly and three ST-reserved parliamentary constituencies. It may also impact other non-tribal constituencies where tribals are present in a considerable number. Unfortunately, any proactive positive move to address the pressing challenges and concerns of tribal communities in India seems to be challenged by the 'non-beneficiaries' in the court. The judiciary must consider broader issues of tribal communities — socioeconomic indicators, educational status, presence in the public sphere — while making judicial pronouncements. The Indra Sawhney judgment should not be the sole reference point. In the case of reservation for economically weaker sections where the capping is not applicable, for instance, it was not the only metric considered. Otherwise, tribal communities may perceive that public institution(s) follow different legal metrics for tribal and non-tribal communities. The proposed move should be considered as a means to bring the marginalised on par with the rest of society. The writer is professor and campus director at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati Campus, Assam. Views are personal
India Gazette
23-04-2025
- Entertainment
- India Gazette
Yami Gautam, Emraan Hashmi to feature in Shah Bano case-inspired legal thriller
ANI 23 Apr 2025, 18:46 GMT+10 Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], April 23 (ANI): Actors Yami Gautam and Emraan Hashmi will be seen headlining a film inspired by the Shah Bano Vs Ahmed Khan case. According to a press note, both Yami and Emraan have completed shooting for the movie, which is expected to be released later this year. Hashmi will be essaying the role of Yami's husband, a character inspired by Shah Bano's husband, Ahmed Khan. Directed by Suparn S Verma of Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hain fame, the movie has been shot across Lucknow and Uttar Pradesh. More details regarding the project have not been disclosed yet. The Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors, or the Shah Bano maintenance case, has been considered one of the legal milestones in the battle for the protection of the rights of Muslim women in India. In 1978, Shah Bano filed a petition in a court in Indore, demanding maintenance from her divorced husband, Mohammed Ahmed Khan, a well-known lawyer. The two had married in 1932 and had five children--three sons and two daughters. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano was entitled to maintenance under section 125. However, a year later Rajiv Gandhi government brought the legislation to nullify the court verdict. (ANI)
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Corruption case: Supreme Court refers Yediyurappa appeal to larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger Bench a special leave petition filed by former Karnataka Chief Minister and BJP leader B.S. Yediyurappa challenging the revival of a corruption case against him. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra explained that one of the primary questions of law involved in Mr. Yediyurappa's case was whether a magistrate could order an investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without getting prior approval from the appropriate authority under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice Pardiwala said during research for their judgement, he and Justice Misra came across the fact that a coordinate Bench (another two-judge Bench) of the apex court referred a different case posing the very same question of law to a larger Bench in 2018. That reference was still pending adjudication even now in the apex court. Tagging the petition filed by Mr. Yediyurappa with the 2018 case (Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors), the Bench said that judicial discipline required them not to proceed with the judgement, but leave it to the larger Bench to decide. 'For maintaining judicial discipline, a coordinate Bench of this court had refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue which is under reference to a larger Bench. We deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. The registry is directed to place these matters before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders,' the Bench said. The case against Mr. Yediyurappa was based on a complaint by Alam Pasha, who had accused the former Chief Minister of entering into a conspiracy with others to revoke the approval granted by a high-level clearance committee to allot 26 acres of land at Devanahalli Industrial Area in Bengaluru Rural district. Mr. Pasha's case was that the alleged de-notification of government land meant for industrial development had cost the public exchequer heavily. Mr. Yediyurappa was Chief Minister between 2008 and 2011 at the time these alleged events happened. The Lokayukta police had investigated the complaint and an FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Cognisance of the chargesheet was taken by the local court in 2013. However, Mr. Yediyurappa had approached the High Court of Karnataka to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. The BJP leader had argued successfully in the High Court that since he was a public servant at the time of the alleged events, the magistrate ought not to have taken cognisance of the complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC without prior approval from the appropriate authority under Section 17A. Mr. Yediyurappa had banked on a 2013 Supreme Court case law, Anil Kumar vs. MK Aiyappa, to win his case in the High Court. The pending reference in the Manju Surana case deals with the correctness of law declared in the Aiyappa case. Following the High Court decision, Mr. Pasha had waited for two months to file a second complaint containing identical allegations against the former Chief Minister. This time, he argued that Mr. Yediyurappa had ceased to hold public office and there was no need for prior sanction to prosecute him. The trial court had dismissed the complaint for lack of sanction, but the High Court favoured Mr. Pasha. The High Court further revived the corruption case against the BJP leader in 2021. This had compelled Mr. Yediyurappa to approach the Supreme Court.
