Arvind Kejriwal, arrested en route to PM's home, refuses to leave Bawana jail

New Delhi, October 13: Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested for leading a march towards Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's residence, has refused to leave Bawana jail. The activist-turned-politician, who was detained along with several supporters - many of them with special needs - on Friday afternoon, is adamant that Law Minister Salman Khurshid be sacked and has decided to stay put at the makeshift jail till his demand is met with.

Mr Khurshid is in the middle of a raging controversy over alleged financial malpractices by an NGO - headed by him and run by his wife, Louise - that is meant to help special-needs people in his home state of Uttar Pradesh. Mr Kejriwal has been demanding that the minister should either quit or be fired.

"Both the minister and his wife are influential people and they can tamper with evidence," Mr Kejriwal said. Fresh from launching an as-yet-unnamed political party, Mr Kejriwal had marched towards the Prime Minister's residence at 7, Race Course Road yesterday but was stopped by the police who detained him along with other activists and took him to the makeshift jail at Rajiv Gandhi stadium in Bawana.

In a late night tweet, Mr Kejriwal alleged that the police were "selectively picking up volunteers and beating them up" to "terrorise" them. "If the government thinks that they can silence us, they are mistaken. Every such incident will strengthen our resolve to fight for our country," he said.

Police, however, denied the allegations.

Earlier on Friday, Mr Kejriwal, who gathered at the Jantar Mantar along with other activists after being stopped by the police, called on his supporters to "turn this into Tahrir Square". Later, supporters of the activist-turned-politician punctured a tyre of the bus that was leading him away, prompting his transfer to another vehicle. As he was being driven away, Mr Kejriwal, referring to Mr Khurshid, said, "Those who fight corruption are being jailed. And a corrupt minister is free."

Mr Kejriwal wanted the Prime Minister to meet differently-abled people today, but was refused an appointment. Sources in the Prime Minister's Office said that the request for the meeting was made on Friday morning, and that the Prime Minister had a full day.

Mr Kejriwal says that the Law Minister must be removed because a sting carried on a Hindi news channel earlier this week proved large-scale embezzlement of funds by his NGO. The channel claims that the NGO, which is run by Mr Khurshid's wife, forged signatures of government officials to attest that the funds were being used as intended.

Mr Khurshid has denied the charges. On Friday, he described Mr Kejriwal as a "man possessed not with any noble idea but burning ambition for which he will destroy whatever is in his path." He added that Mr Kejriwal should be aware that "the free ride is over" and that he will battle his allegations legally and on public platforms.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Madrasas unsuitable place for children to receive proper education’: NCPCR’s claim in SC

News Network

September 12,2024

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.

Comments