Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused the Union government of misleading the country by denying that security personnel had fired pellet guns at protesters during their march to Parliament on Monday. The Congress leader made the statement while speaking to reporters alongside a 19-year-old protester who lost vision in one eye after being hit by what doctors are reported to have said were pellets.
Meanwhile, Union ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh met with representatives of the Cockroach Janta Party at Delhi’s Constitution Club of India. After the meeting concluded, Saurav Das, a spokesperson of the political campaign, said that the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan remained a non-negotiable demand. Ashutosh Ranka, another spokesperson, said that the Centre had sought time until tomorrow.
This followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement in a video late on Thursday night that a bill providing for fast-track courts and stricter penalties for exam paper leaks will be discussed in a Cabinet meeting on Friday. Follow updates about the youth protests here.
Also read Ayush Tiwari’s report about pellet wounds on a journalist covering students’ protests
After Modi’s announcement, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts designated special fast-track courts to hear cases related to question paper leaks and other malpractices in public examinations. The special court in Delhi will function from the Rouse Avenue Court Complex and will be presided over by Judge Anu Grover Baliga.
In Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has designated two special fast-track courts in Aurangabad and Nagpur to conduct trials under the 2024 Public Examinations Prevention of Unfair Means Act. The law mandates that trials must be completed within three months. Read on.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking an inquiry by the National Investigation Agency into the youth protests in the national capital and the July 20 march to Parliament over alleged examination irregularities. The court said that any decision to transfer a case to the agency must be taken by the Union government.
The petition, filed by a former office bearer of the Hindutva organisation Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, alleged that the protests were part of a “larger conspiracy” involving “external funding”.
The court said that under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, only the Union government can decide whether a case should be transferred to the agency. “You are asking us to form an opinion that this is a fit case,” it said. “This job has been entrusted to the central government…If you want to refer investigation to NIA you can do so.” Read on.
The Delhi High Court questioned the Election Commission for deploying government school teachers for duties related to the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in the national capital. “Taking shade of Article 324, you do whatever you like?” asked the bench.
Article 324 empowers the Election Commission to supervise, direct and control elections for Parliament and state legislatures.
The court was hearing a petition alleging that the poll panel had deployed all regular teachers of some government schools as booth-level officers for the voter roll revision. While the poll panel countered this by saying that teachers have been told to do voter roll revision work after school, the bench asked if they “don’t need rest”. Read on.
If you haven’t already, sign up for our Daily Brief newsletter.
|
