Mangaluru Chalo: Cops scuttle bike rally as BJP defies ban

Mangaluru, Sept 9: An action committee has voiced concerns about the construction of a new toll plaza near Sooralpady Masjid on the Mangaluru-Moodbidri-Karkala National Highway 169, 17 km from Nanthoor. Amidst ongoing construction, the Action Committee Against Surathkal Toll Gate claims irregularities and poor site selection.

Committee convener Muneer Katipalla noted that only 50% of the Nanthoor-Moodbidri-Karkala highway upgrade is complete after seven to eight years. The Nanthoor-Vamanjoor stretch remains unfinished, causing traffic issues, while dangerous hillside cutting near Kettikal has forced residents to relocate. Additionally, a flyover near Kaikamba threatens a local market.

Katipalla also criticized the construction of a bypass road, alleging it benefits real estate investors and inflates the project cost, which could increase toll fees. The proposed toll plaza, situated 36 km from Talapady toll gate and 35 km from Brahmarakotlu toll gate, violates distance regulations and is too close to local amenities, raising public objections.

There is growing concern that toll collection might begin before the project's completion, with locals frustrated by unaddressed grievances. Social activist Bava Padarangi, DYFI leader Srinath Kulal, and other community leaders attended the site visit.

In a heartbreaking incident, a beautiful journey of love and new beginnings was abruptly shattered by a tragic accident on the Mangaluru-Bengaluru highway at Talapady in Bantwal taluk on Saturday, September 7.

Manasa, a newlywed bride, lost her life in a devastating car accident, leaving her husband, Aneesh Krishna, critically injured.

The couple, who had just begun their marital journey on September 5, was returning from a temple visit to settle dues when fate took a cruel turn. Their Alto car, in which they were traveling from B C Road towards Mangaluru, skidded off course after the driver lost control, causing the vehicle to jump the divider and collide head-on with a KSRTC bus.

In the blink of an eye, their world crumbled. The impact was so severe that their car was left mangled, with Manasa tragically losing her life at the scene. Aneesh, fighting for his life, has been rushed to a private hospital in Mangaluru.

Manasa and Aneesh, both professionals working in a private company in Mangaluru, had dreams of a life together, filled with shared moments and cherished memories. The couple's love story, celebrated just days ago with their wedding at the Denthadka Temple, now echoes in the hearts of their grieving families, forever marred by this tragic accident.

The Melkar police arrived swiftly at the scene and have begun their investigation, hoping to bring clarity to this devastating event.

In the aftermath of this tragic accident, the community mourns the loss of a young bride and prays for the recovery of a husband left fighting for his life.

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.