My mother told me the words I used were wrong: Rahul Gandhi on ordinance

Ahmedabad, Oct 3: Rahul Gandhi today spoke for the first time about his scathing public review of the ordinance that was introduced to protect convicted MPs.

"My mother told me that the words that I used were strong. In hindsight, I feel maybe my words were wrong....but the sentiment i felt was not wrong," the young vice-president of the Congress told reporters in Gujarat. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, is president of the Congress party. "I am entitled to voice my opinion," he said, stressing that a large section of his party supported his stand.

The government withdrew the ordinance last evening, which Mr Gandhi derided as "nonsense" that should be "torn up and thrown away" at a press conference last week that was being addressed by senior Congress leader Ajay Maken. "I told him you can't defend the indefensible," Mr Gandhi said today.

His surprise attack undermined the authority of the Prime Minister, who was traveling abroad, because the cabinet had approved the executive order. Yesterday, Mr Gandhi met Dr Manmohan Snigh and reportedly expressed regret for the timing and language of his critique. However, he reiterated his opposition to the controversial executive order that was seen as a naked attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court.

In July, the court barred law-makers from holding office if they are convicted in cases carrying sentences of more than two years.

Two days after her son's blunt remarks, Mrs Gandhi defended the Prime Minister at a rally in Karnataka and attacked the main opposition party, the BJP, for "making fun" of him.

"They (the BJP) ridicule our achievements. They make fun of our party, our prime minister. I want to tell them that our whole party stands behind the prime minister," she said.

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