'Corona Mai': Now women in UP start worshiping virus as goddess

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday halted unauthorised bulldozer action against private property, anywhere in the country, till October 1, dismissing concerns by the government that demolitions sanctioned after following due process could be impacted. 

The "heavens won't fall if we ask you to hold your hands till the next hearing", a bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared.

An irate top court - which has already come down hard, twice this month, on 'bulldozer justice' meted out by various state governments - also warned the government against "grandstanding" and "glorification" of this practice. "No demolition, till next, date, without permission of this court," the government was told, and warned the Election Commission may also be put on notice.

The court's reference to the poll panel is significant given elections are due in Jammu and Kashmir (the first Assembly election in a decade) and Haryana, where the Bharatiya Janata Party is looking to return to power. Elections are also due this year in BJP-ruled Maharashtra and Jharkhand.

The court, however, also clarified its order is not applicable to removal of encroachments in public spaces such as roads, railway tracks, water bodies, etc.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to CJI D Y Chandrachud's house for Ganesha puja celebrations has raised doubts in the mind of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, who questioned whether he would deliver 'justice' in the ongoing case the party has in the Supreme Court, given that the PM is the other party in the case.

Speaking to ANI, Raut said "Ganpathi festival is going on, people visit each other's houses. I don't have info regarding how many houses PM visited so far...but PM went to CJI's house and they together performed 'Aarti'."

He said that a custodian of the Constitution meeting politicians could raise doubts in the minds of people.

"In our case, other party is the central govt...Chief Justice should distance himself from this case because his relation with the other party in the case is openly visible," Raut continued.

He also raised questions if the CJI be able to give them justice in the case. "We are getting dates after dates and an illegal govt is going on...Shiv Sena and NCP were broken in such a way...we are not getting justice and PM Modi is taking a lot of interest in the illegal govt of Maharashtra, to save them," the Sena (UBT) leader continued.

Raut alleged that a doubt had been formed in Maharashtra's mind given the 'bond' the PM and the CJI seem to share.

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.