Modi arrives in Sweden; first bilateral visit by an Indian PM in 30 years

Mandya: The Deputy Superintendent of Police of Nagamangala town in Mandya district has been suspended for "negligence and dereliction of duty" in connection with the clashes that broke out between two groups during a Lord Ganesh idol procession, police said on Friday.

This is the second suspension of a police officer over the clashes on September 11 following which mobs went on a rampage targeting several shops and vehicles leading to tension here.

The situation in the town has since returned to normalcy and most of the shops have started operating. However, adequate security forces continued to be stationed here as a precautionary measure, according to police.

Sumeeth A R, DySP (Nagamangala), was suspended on Thursday for negligence and dereliction of duty, Mandya Superintendent of Police Mallikarjun Baldandi told PTI.

"He (Sumeeth) was not present at the spot nor was he at the police headquarters when the incident occurred. He arrived late at the spot despite the sensitive nature of events," he said.

Earlier, Police Inspector Ashok Kumar posted at Nagamangala town police station was suspended for dereliction of duty in connection with the violence.

A total of 55 people have been arrested in connection with the incident.

According to police, an argument broke out between two groups, when the Ganesh idol procession by devotees from Badarikoppalu village reached a place of worship on September 11, and some miscreants hurled stones, which escalated the situation.

The police had used mild force to disperse the crowd to control the situation.

Ramanagara, Sep 19: A case of rape, sexual harassment and criminal intimidation has been registered against BJP MLA Munirathna and six others, police said on Thursday.

It was registered following the complaint of a 40-year-old woman who alleged that the incident took place at a private resort within the Kaggalipura police station’s jurisdiction.

“We received a complaint on Wednesday night and based on it, we have registered case against seven people, including the BJP MLA under various sections for rape by public servant, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, voyeurism, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, Information Technology Act, and others,” a senior police officer said.

The matter is being investigated, he said.

The fresh FIR against the BJP MLA, also a former Minister, comes days after he was arrested by the Bengaluru Police in connection with the two cases filed against him for alleged harassment, threats and casteist abuse, police said.

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.