2024 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 24, ശനിയാഴ്‌ച

Assured pensions return as government backtracks on New Pension Scheme

NEW DELHI

Centre unveils Unified Pension Scheme, which is almost akin to the Old Pension Scheme; it assures government employees of 50% of their last-drawn pay as a lifelong monthly benefit

The NDA government on Saturday (August 24, 2024) reversed a 21-year-old reform of India’s civil services pension system boldly brought in by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, unveiling what it called a new ‘Unified Pension Scheme’ (UPS) that is virtually akin to the Old Pension Scheme, and assures government employees 50% of their last drawn pay as a lifelong monthly benefit

The UPS, approved by the Union Cabinet on Saturday (August 24, 2024), also assures officials a periodic dearness relief hike in line with inflation trends, a family pension equivalent to 60% of a government worker’s pension in the case of their demise, and a lumpsum superannuation payout in addition to gratuity benefits at the time of retirement. Besides, a minimum pension of ₹10,000 a month has been promised for those who complete at least 10 years of central government service.

The Cabinet decision was informed by recommendations of a committee under former Finance Secretary and Cabinet Secretary-designate T.V. Somanathan, set up in March 2023 to review the National Pension System (NPS) [originally known as the New Pension Scheme] for government employees in a way that balances “their aspirations with fiscal prudence

The Hindu Explains | Why is the government tweaking the National Pension System? 

At the time, five Opposition-ruled States had moved their employees out of the NPS to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) with guaranteed pension at 50% of salary. Under the NPS, which kicked in for employees joining government service on or after January 1, 2004, pension payouts were linked to the accumulated value of contributions made by government and the employee through the latter’s working life. These contributions were invested in equities and other market-linked securities by fund managers regulated by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA).

State governments are open to adopt the architecture of the UPS, cleared by the Cabinet to kick in from April 1, 2025, Mr. Somanathan said after the Cabinet’s clearance, stressing that the key difference between the OPS and the UPS is that OPS liabilities were unfunded and entailed no contributions from employees or the employer

The UPS, will be a contributory scheme, with employees’ chipping in 10% of salary and the government bringing in 18.5% of salary. Mr. Somanathan also signalled that employees’ contributions will be frozen at the 10% threshold, while the government’s contributions may be adjusted higher or lower based on periodic actuarial assessments about the funding requirements to meet the UPS promises.


While the NPS will continue to remain an option, all employees who have joined service since 2004, including those who may have retired since then, have been given the option to switch over to the more generous UPS, and Mr. Somanathan reckoned it will be beneficial for about 99% of NPS members to move to the UPS. Separately, employees have also been promised a lumpsum payment in addition to gratuity benefits at the time of retirement. This lumpsum will be equivalent to 1/10th of monthly emoluments (pay + Dearness Allowance) for every completed six months of service.


We are proud of the hard work of all government employees who contribute significantly to national progress. The Unified Pension Scheme ensures dignity and financial security for government employees, aligning with our commitment to their well-being and a secure future,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised in a post on X.

While Mr. Modi had met government employee representatives earlier in the day, their reaction to the Cabinet move was mixed.


The Central Secretariat Service Forum was pleased that the Government has realised “a genuine need to ponder over NPS” and said the UPS is better with an assured pension. However, the forum resolved to continue asking for its “one and only demand”, the OPS, indicating they were not in favour of salary deductions in the UPS.

Shiv Gopal Mishra, secretary of the Joint Consultative Mechanism (JCM) between the central government and its employees, told The Hindu that they welcomed the UPS, adding that the Prime Minister had assured better coordination with employees in their hour-long meeting in the evening. .

His JCM colleague, All India Defence Employees Federation general secretary C Srikumar differed. “This is a result of our agitations. But we are not happy. The UPS should be non-contributory,” he said, adding that they will await the actual notification before assessing the full impact.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw pointed out that Congress-ruled States that had announced a return to the OPS were yet to implement it, while the PM had ensured a well-consulted outcome that will ensure “inter-generational equity”.


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rip-new-pension-scheme-born-january-1-2004-extinguished-august-24-2024/article68563482.ece

ഏകീകൃത പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതിയുമായി കേന്ദ്രം

പഴയ പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതി പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കണമെന്ന്‌ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ട് രാജ്യത്ത് പ്രതിഷേധം ശക്തമായതിന്‌ പിന്നാലെ പുതിയ ഏകീകൃത പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതിക്ക്‌ (യുപിഎസ്‌) കേന്ദ്രമന്ത്രിസഭാ യോഗം അംഗീകാരം നല്‍കി.  2025 ഏപ്രിൽ ഒന്ന്‌ മുതൽ നിലവിൽ വരും. കേന്ദ്രജീവനക്കാർക്ക്‌ നിലവിലുള്ള ദേശീയ പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതി (എൻപിഎസ്‌) അല്ലെങ്കിൽ യുപിഎസ്‌  തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കാം. എൻപിഎസ്‌ അംഗങ്ങൾക്ക്‌ യുപിഎസിലേക്ക്‌ മാറാം. എൻപിഎസ്‌ നിലവിലുള്ള സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങൾക്കും ആവശ്യമെങ്കിൽ യുപിഎസിലേക്ക്‌ മാറാം. പദ്ധതി 23 ലക്ഷം കേന്ദ്രജീവനക്കാർക്ക്‌ ഗുണം ചെയ്യുമെന്ന് കേന്ദ്രമന്ത്രി അശ്വിനി വൈഷ്‌ണവ്‌ പറഞ്ഞു.

● 25 വർഷമെങ്കിലും സർവീസുള്ള ജീവനക്കാർ വിരമിക്കുമ്പോൾ അവസാന 12 മാസത്തെ ശരാശരി അടിസ്ഥാന ശമ്പളത്തിന്റെ 50 ശതമാനം പെൻഷൻ നൽകും. 10 വർഷത്തിന്‌ മുകളിൽ സർവീസുള്ളവർക്ക്‌ ആനുപാതികമായ തോതിൽ പെൻഷൻ.
●  ജീവനക്കാർ മരിച്ചാൽ പെൻഷന്റെ 60 ശതമാനം കുടുംബ പെൻഷൻ.
● മിനിമം 10 വർഷം സർവീസുള്ളവർക്ക്‌ ചുരുങ്ങിയത്‌ 10,000 രൂപ പെൻഷൻ.
● ഉപഭോക്‌തൃ വില സൂചിക അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കിയുള്ള ക്ഷാമബത്ത വ്യവസായ തൊഴിലാളികൾക്കും ലഭ്യമാക്കും.
● ജീവനക്കാർ വിരമിക്കുന്ന ഘട്ടത്തിൽ ഗ്രാറ്റുവിറ്റിക്ക്‌ പുറമേ നിശ്‌ചിതതുക കൂടി ലഭിക്കും. പൂർത്തിയാക്കിയ ഒരോ ആറുമാസ സേവനകാലയളവിനും, അവസാനം വാങ്ങിയ ശമ്പളത്തിന്റെ പത്തിൽ ഒന്നെന്ന തോതിലാകും ഈ നിശ്ചിതതുക നിർണയിക്കുന്നത്‌

അതേസമയം, പുതിയ പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതി പ്രകാരം സർക്കാർ വിഹിതം 14 ശതമാനമായിരുന്നത്‌ യുപിഎസിൽ 18 ശതമാനമാക്കി വർധിപ്പിക്കുമെന്നും റിപ്പോർട്ടുണ്ട്‌. ജീവനക്കാരില്‍ നിന്ന് പത്തു ശതമാനം പെന്‍ഷന്‍ വിഹിതം പിടിക്കുന്നത് തുടരും.
രണ്ടാം യുപിഎ സർക്കാരിന്റെ കാലത്ത്‌ 2004 ജനുവരി മുതലാണ്‌ രാജ്യത്തെ ലക്ഷകണക്കിന്‌ കേന്ദ്ര, സംസ്ഥാന ജീവനക്കാരെ ദുരിതത്തിലാക്കി പുതിയ പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതി നടപ്പാക്കിയത്‌.  എന്നാൽ പഴയ പെൻഷൻ പദ്ധതി നടപ്പാക്കുകയാണ്‌ വേണ്ടതെന്ന്‌ സംഘടനകൾ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു.
 

Read more: https://www.deshabhimani.com/news/kerala/center-with-unified-pension-scheme/1133744

2024 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 18, ഞായറാഴ്‌ച

Adverse Effects Of Climate Change Need Serious Consideration Justice BR Gavai-266983

Justice BR Gavai, while referring to the recent instances of natural calamities in Wayanad and Himachal Pradesh, highlighted the need to take the climate crisis seriously.

The Supreme Court Judge was delivering the inaugural address at the Commonwealth Legal Education Association's International Conference on "Law and Technology: Sustainable Transport, Tourism and Technological Innovations" in Kumarakom, Kerala.

“The adverse effects of climate change are to be looked into seriously,” he said.

He emphasized the need to ensure that the nation's development doesn't occur at the cost of the environment. It was stressed that human's greed for more may tend to cross boundaries of ethics and may jeopardize the future of coming generations.

“For the progress of the country, development is necessary. But at the same time, the development must not be at the cost of the environment. Man has always been greedy, but the greed should not go to such limits wherein there is no concern for the future generations.”

Justice Gavai underscored the need for a proactive approach to the pressing issue of climate change and underlined that life will not be worth pursuing if we cannot even enjoy the basic rights to clean air and water.

Justice Gavai praised the advancement of environmental jurisprudence in India over the past ten years. He cited the landmark M.C. Mehta case, where the Supreme Court took action against pollution-causing buses in Delhi, mandating the use of CNG vehicles. Thus he stressed the role of the Top Court in ensuring that eco-friendly solutions are implemented to advance the expanded understanding of Article 21- Right to life and personal liberty

“The right to live has been interpreted as the right to an environment which is pollution free, the right to potable and clean water and so on. The right to clean air has also been recognized as one of the fundamental rights and therefore we see that in the last decade, the emphasis has been on transport,  that is to have fuel which is not polluting. The initial stress was on CNG and now it's on electric carts and so on.”

Dwelling deeper into animal v human conflict, Justice Gavai recalled how recently the Top Court directed to regulate tourism and safari activities in Tiger Reserves and Wildlife Conservation Sites.

In conclusion, Justice Gavai urged immediate action on climate change, quoting George Bernard Shaw: "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." He emphasized that addressing climate change is crucial for our survival and the planet's future.

Justice Suryakant Kant, the Chief Patron of the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, also emphasized that while public transportation may be revolutionized by the potential of automated vehicles, it also come with a set of ethical and regulatory challenges that need careful consideration.

Chief Justice of Seychelles Rony Goviden was the Guest of Honour.

Justice AM Muhammed Mustaque, Acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also spoke during the event.

The speakers expressed condolences for the victims of the recent Wayanad landslide tragedy.

The event can be watched live here.

For First Time, Supreme Court Recognizes Right To Be Free From Adverse Effects Of Climate Change


2024 ജൂലൈ 26, വെള്ളിയാഴ്‌ച

Kerala challenging the action of the President of India in withholding assent for four bills and the action of the Kerala Governor in referring those bills to the President.

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) agreed to consider the writ petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging the action of the President of India in withholding assent for four bills and the action of the Kerala Governor in referring those bills to the President.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice to the Union of India (through the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs) and the Additional Chief Secretary to Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan.

Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India KK Venugopal, appearing for the State, submitted that there was a need for the Court to lay down guidelines on when the Governors can return/refer bills.

"This a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country as to what their powers are in regard to assenting to bills. In the present case, out of eight bills, two of them had been kept pending for 23 months. One for 15 months. Another for 13 months. And others for 10 months. Now, it is a very sad state of affairs. The Constitution itself is being rendered otiose," Venugopal submitted. He pointed out that the State was challenging the very reference of the bills to the President.

"Your lordships need to tell the Governor as to when they can refuse to assent, when they can refer to the President," Venugopal submitted.

While agreeing to issue notice on the petition, CJI asked Venugopal and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (who is appearing in a similar petition filed by the State of West Bengal) to formulate the points. Venugopal replied that those points have been formulated in an application filed by the State of Kerala in the pending petition against the Governor's inaction on the bills.

The state of Kerala has challenged the action of President Droupadi Murmu in withholding assent for four out of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor.

In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the State also challenged the Governor's action of referring the bills to the President, arguing that none of the bills related to Centre-State relations required the Presidential assent.

The bills are related to amendments to laws concerning State Universities and Cooperative Societies. The State pointed out that the Governor had kept these bills pending for several months, ranging from 7 months to 24 months from the date when the bills were passed by the Assembly.

Previously, the State filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Governor's inaction. After the Supreme Court issued notice on the petition on November 20 last year the Governor referred the seven bills to the President. On November 29, 2023, while hearing the petition, the Supreme Court criticised the Governor for sitting over the bills.

On February 29, the President withheld assent from four bills and approved three other bills. Presidential assent was withheld for the following bills. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, 2) the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, 3) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 , and 4) the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.

The State of Kerala argued that no reasoning has been given for such a rejection. The actions of the Union Government in advising the President of India to withhold the assent to bills which had been passed by the State Legislature as long as 11-24 months back, and which were wholly within the domain of the State Government, subverts and disrupted the federal structure, the State contended. 

The reasons given by the Governor for reserving the bills for the President have nothing to do with the Union of India or the relationship between the State Legislature or the Union. In this regard, reference is made to the proviso to Article 213 of the Constitution, which sets out the occasions when the assent of the President is necessary for promulgating an Ordinance. The State argued that only on the existence of these factors that a reference to the President was justified.

The State seeks the following reliefs :

(a) Calling for the records leading to the File Notes of the Governor for the State of Kerala with regard to reservation of 4 bills for consideration of the President and quash the same;

(b) Declare that the act of the Governor for the State of Kerala reserving 4 bills viz for consideration of the President, as unconstitutional;

(c) Calling for the records leading to the withholding of assent by the President to four bills and quash the same;

(d) Declare that withholding of assent by the President to 4 Bills without stating any reason whatsoever, as unconstitutional; and

(e) Direct the Governor of the State of Kerala to grant assent to the six bills viz. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 - Bill No. 50, 2) University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 – Bill No. 54, 3) the Kerala Co-operative Societies Amendment Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 110, 4) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 132, 5) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 149, and 6) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 150 forthwith; and

(f) Declare that the act of the Governor of Kerala in reserving the seven bills viz. 1) University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021 - Bill No. 50, 2) University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 – Bill No. 54, 3) the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 110, 4) the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 132, 5) Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2022 – Bill No.133, 6) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 149, and 7) The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 - Bill No. 150 for the consideration of the President was illegal and lacks in bona fides.

Case Details : STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 211/2024

2024 ജൂലൈ 21, ഞായറാഴ്‌ച

Caste-Based Discrimination In Indian Prisons

While reserving judgment on a public interest litigation highlighting the issue of caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons, the Supreme Court today expressed displeasure with some of the provisions contained in state prison manuals and remarked that they were "very disturbing".

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra heard the matter and concluded arguments on behalf of both sides.

Briefly put, the petition was filed by journalist-Sukanya Shantha highlighting discriminatory practices taking place in the prisons of certain states/UTs of India. To elucidate by way of example, she mentioned that the old Uttar Pradesh Prison Manual, 1941 provided for maintenance of caste prejudices of prisoners and designation of cleaning, conservancy, and sweeping work on caste basis. However, in 2022, amendments were made aligning it with the Model Manual and removing provisions for allotting work based on caste. Despite this change, the 2022 Manual continued to uphold a rule related to the preservation of caste prejudice and segregation of habitual offenders.

Shantha further claimed that there were identical discriminatory laws in the State Prison Manuals of 13 major states, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, Bihar and Maharashtra.

Notice was issued on her plea to the Union Government and 13 State Governments in January this year.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar and Advocate Disha Wadekar appeared for Shantha and argued that the discrimination was taking place in three ways: (i) through division of manual labor; (ii) through segregation of barracks on caste lines; (iii) through extant provisions in state prison manuals which discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes (referred to as criminal or wandering and nomadic tribes in the manuals) and “habitual offenders”.

Besides the above, it was contended that the Model Prison Manual was inadequate insofar as there was a need to address caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The counsels further pointed out that they had placed on record testimonials from undertrials (past and present), detailing their experiences of the discriminatory practices.

Sr Adv Muralidhar, in particular, drew the court's attention to an advisory issued by the Union to states/UTs in February, 2024 to address the issue of caste-based discrimination. He pointed out that in the replies filed by some of the states, there was an admission of the discriminatory practices and the same were sought to be justified.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Union), on the other hand, urged that prisons being a state subject, the Union can do nothing more than issuing an Advisory, unless the court directs that it monitor compliance and report back.

A counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh also submitted before the court that the state had filed its reply containing provisions from its prison manual as well as stating that there was no caste-based discrimination taking place in the prisons. The submission was however countered by Sr Adv Muralidhar, pointing to one of the provisions: "your Lordships may see [Rule] 289...it's really disturbing...'a convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of degrading character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties'...what kind of reply is this? It does not even mention Rule 289".

Going through the provisions of Prison Manuals of UP and other states, the bench found merit in the petitioners' objections. Justice Pardiwala could be heard expressing serious displeasure at a provision (Rule 793) contained in West Bengal's Prison Manual. "What is this rule? Just read. It's very disturbing", the judge said to West Bengal's counsel.

Parting with the matter, the bench indicated that it would appoint nodal officers and ask the Central government to give clarification on provisions which were pointed out by petitioners as having ambiguity. It was also conveyed that the judgment to be passed would implicate role of District Legal Services Authorities, to ensure that it is duly implemented. 

The petitioner's written submissions can be read here.

Case Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order

2024 ജൂലൈ 5, വെള്ളിയാഴ്‌ച

If Prosecuting Agency Cant Ensure Speedy Trial They Shouldnt Oppose Bail Citing Seriousness Of Offence Supreme- Court-262328

Chastising the National Investigating Agency for delaying the trial in a case under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Supreme Court stated that if the prosecuting agency cannot protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, then they cannot oppose his bail application on the ground that the offence was serious.

"Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India," observed the Court while granting bail to a man, who has been under custody since February 2020 in a case over alleged smuggling of counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan.

The Court underscored that the right to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, applies to all accused irrespective of the nature of the crime. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Bombay High Court denying him bail, observed :

"If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

Criticism of Trial Delays

The Court also lamented that the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

The Court cited various precedents - Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 - which emphasise that the bail is to be granted if the presence of the accused at the trial can be secured.

The judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, which declared that the right to speedy trial was a part of Article 21, was also cited.

Reference was made to the recent judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 which held that bail can be granted if there is undue delay in trial regardless of the stringent provisions of special statutes like NDPS Act. The judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that UAPA does not bar constitutional courts from granting bail on the ground of long delay in the trial was also relied upon.

The Court also noted that  Section 19 of the NIA Act 2008 mandated that trials should be held on a day-to-day basis.

In the instant case, the Court observed that the manner in which the NIA(Prosecuting Agency) and the trial court handled the proceedings resulted in the infringement of the right to speedy trial of the accused. It was noted that the trial court has not even framed the charges, despite the passage of four years. Since the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses, the Court wondered by when the trial would actually conclude.

"We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be," the Court said.

Humanistic Approach to Criminal Justice

Advocating a humanistic approach towards criminals keeping in mind the fact that most crimes are products of socio-economic circumstances, the Court further stated :

"Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations."

The Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

Case Title : JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR | SLP(Crl) No. 3809/2024


2024 ജൂൺ 18, ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച

Justice Chandru Committee recommends prohibition of wristbands, forehead markings in students; removal of caste appellations in school names

The committee, constituted in the wake of a brutal assault on siblings belonging to the Scheduled Caste community by their classmates in Tirunelveli district last year, also made recommendations on seating arrangements, and a separate legislation to enforce a policy of social inclusion

Justice Chandru submitted his report to Chief Minister M. K. Stalin at the Secretariat in Chennai on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, in the presence of School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena and others | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
The one-man committee headed by retired Madras High Court judge Justice K. Chandru, has recommended that the Tamil Nadu government prohibit students in schools from wearing coloured wristbands, rings, or forehead marks that may indicate their caste. It also recommended the removal of caste appellations in the names of schools.
Mr. Chandru submitted his report to Chief Minister M. K. Stalin at the Secretariat in Chennai on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, in the presence of School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena and others. The Hindu accessed the copy of the report.
Justice Chandru’s committee was constituted in the wake of an incident at Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district in August 2023, in which two school children belonging to the Scheduled Castes were brutally assaulted by a group of students from an intermediate caste.

The report said, “They [students] must also refrain from coming to school on bicycles painted with reference to their caste or exhibiting any caste-related sentiments. Failure to comply with these rules must result in appropriate action being taken, in addition to advising their parents or guardians.”

While the words ‘Kallar Reclamation’ and ‘Adi Dravidar Welfare’ should be removed from State-run schools, in the case of existing private schools, the School Education Department should request these schools to give up caste appellations, the report recommended. “If they fail to comply, appropriate legal steps should be considered, including legislative changes to serve the larger public interest,” the report said.

The students’ attendance register should not contain any column or details relating to their caste. “At no point can the class teacher call out students by either directly or indirectly referring to their caste, nor make any derogatory remarks about the student’s caste or the so-called character attributed to the caste”.

The State government must take steps to amend the existing Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and insert a provision that a society intending to start an educational institution shall not include any caste appellations in their institution’s name, it said.

Seating arrangement

The seating arrangements of students in every classroom in all schools and colleges should be strictly based on alphabetical order (of their names), the panel recommended.

While the report said the State government and the School Education Department were “justified” in prohibiting the use of mobile phones by school students, the panel said it was crucial to strictly enforce banning the use of mobile phones by students on school campuses.

This order [prohibition of mobile phones] should be applied not only to students of schools under the State Board but also to those in schools affiliated with the CBSE and other boards, such as ICSE, ensuring a consistent approach across all educational institutions,” the report said.

Legislation for social inclusion, eradication of caste discrimination

The committee also recommended that the Tamil Nadu government enact a separate legislation governing all students from schools to higher educational institutions, to enforce a policy of social inclusion and eradicate caste discrimination.

“This legislation should impose duties and responsibilities on students, teaching and non teaching staff, as well as the management of such institutions and prescribe mechanisms for supervision, control, and sanctions for non compliance with these directives”, it said.

The panel also recommended enhancing local bodies’ control over primary education. Recommending that the current limited role granted to local bodies in the school education system be expanded to full control over primary education, it said that block-level administrations (panchayat unions) must have full control over schools, including appointing, posting, and removing staff.

“The laying down of guidelines relating to curriculum and standards and conducting board exams shall be managed by the Directorate of School Education and the State government. The government should formulate new legislation to grant true autonomous powers to local bodies, making education more people oriented by amending the existing Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act of 1994,” it said.

The recommendations of the report can be accessed in The Hindu portal at: https://newsth.live/Chandrucommission.