In a significant order, the Supreme Court has
maintained that education is not a business to earn profit. This order should set the ball rolling towards
making education accessible to a large section of our able and aspiring
youth who are at present unable to pursue certain courses of their choice
because of the high fees. The Supreme Court made this observation while ruling
that the tuition fee must always be affordable. Towards this end,
it upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court verdict quashing a State Government
decision of September 2017 to increase the tuition fee of medical100 colleges to Rs. 24 lakh annually. This fee is seven times of that fixed
earlier in 2011. 120 The Supreme Court has
termed this hike as unjustifiable and violative of the rules
prescribed for the fixation or review140 of fees. The issue of fees charged by private medical colleges
and their regulation by the authorities concerned has been160 a contentious one as many
such institutes have mushroomed in the country over the past
few decades. Some of them are even without proper clearances or
infrastructure. These colleges were being run by managements as businesses with
the motive of200 profiteering. This became clear when they resorted to
the practice of paid seats and capitation fees, ignoring the merit of
candidates. It naturally caused much unrest not only among the meritorious
poorer aspirants but also the society as people harboured240 doubts over the quality of
doctors emerging from these institutes and the education imparted to them. The affected parties have regularly sought the
intervention of the authorities concerned, including the Central and State Governments
and courts, for relief. But a280 solution acceptable to all stakeholders has
remained elusive. When Medical Council of India was abolished in September300 2020 and
replaced by a new regulatory authority called the National Medical Commission,
it was touted as a320 historic reform for the medical education framework
as it promised to steer it towards a transparent, qualitative and accountable
system. But the ground situation is still plagued by controversies, right from
the admission process to fee structure. The Supreme360 Court ruling
provides a direction to the remedial steps needed.
Amid the geopolitical tussle triggered by the
Ukraine war, India and Russia have recorded significant growth in bilateral
trade, underlining the strength and endurance of their time-tested
ties. During his first400 visit to Moscow after Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine in
late February, the External Affairs Minister of India made420 it clear that India would
continue to import crude oil from Russia despite western pressure. Russia
became India’s top oil supplier in October, overtaking traditional vendors
Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The External Affairs Minister of India said at a joint
media briefing with Russian Foreign Minister last week that it was New
Delhi’s fundamental obligation to ensure that Indian consumers480 had the best possible access to
the most beneficial terms in international crude markets. India has rightly
gone all out500 to safeguard its interests rather than toeing the line of western
powers during the ongoing energy crisis. It is not surprising that friendliness
between India and Russia has not gone down well with the US. The US has said
that it is committed to working with India on its transition away from
Russia, adding that a number of countries have560 learned the hard way that Moscow
is not a reliable source of energy or security. India, however, is in no mood
to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and fertilizers. Instead,
the two countries are looking to expand600 economic cooperation, especially in the energy sector.
The US is welcome to cement its partnership with India in various sectors, but
it is well advised not to dictate terms to the latter with regard to Russia. While setting its sights640 on an annual
trade volume of 30 billion dollars with Russia, India has indicated that it
is not oblivious to the global headwinds. New Delhi has
stated that it would be supportive of any initiative that stabilizes the
world order. Being an old ally, India is justified in nudging Russia to
make efforts for ending the Ukraine conflict in view700 of global
concerns over energy and food security. Another challenge is to make Russia
more receptive to exports from India720 so as to reduce the growing trade
deficit.
The Union Government’s revised guidelines aimed at making India
a teleport hub for other countries include one new section which may start a
massive debate. The new section says that TV channels must devote at least 30
minutes every day to content designed to promote public service and national
interest. The Cabinet has given its approval to guidelines that have made
it obligatory for TV channels to telecast such content800 on eight themes — education and
spread of literacy; agriculture and rural development; health and family
welfare; science and technology; welfare of women; welfare of the
weaker sections of society; protection of environment and of cultural heritage;
and national integration. According840 to the policy document, airwaves or frequencies are public
property and need to be used in the best interest of the society. Though
the guidelines came into effect on the 9th of November, the Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting has said that TV channels would be given time
to conceptualize and create content on the eight themes. The guidelines900 are binding on all channels
except foreign ones and those devoted to wildlife and live telecast of sports.
According to the ministry, in case any channel is found to be recalcitrant, an
explanation will be sought from it. Prima facie, there seems little to fault in
the choice of the eight themes or even the advisory. After all, the idea960 of promoting national
interest is unlikely to cause dissent. However, the real problem lies in
the interpretation of the term980 ‘national interest’. For instance, each
political party would claim to be working to secure the ‘national
interest’, but their ideologies1000 and methods would vary greatly. Obviously, the
ruling dispensation will be the final arbiter of this loaded term
and the contentious debate over it, and this could lead to punitive
action against channels. The Ministry must display flexibility and let it be
just an advisory with no punitive action attached.
The Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over the Centre
withholding the names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for
appointment as judges in the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court1080 observed that it had become some
sort of a device to force the persons whose names had been recommended to1100 withdraw their consent for
judgeship. Notably, 11 cases cleared and reiterated by the Collegium are
awaiting appointment. Some of them1120 were cleared more than a year ago. One of them has taken back
his assent for the post. As a result, the system has lost the
opportunity of having eminent persons on the Bench. It is not surprising
that very few senior and distinguished members of the Bar are ready to swap
their flourishing legal practice for judgeship.
These observations by the Supreme Court once
again underscore the simmering conflict between the judiciary and the executive
over the method of1200 appointment, transfer and elevation of High
Court and Supreme Court judges. The Union Law Minister has been vocal
about the National Judicial Appointment Commission. However, resorting to
delaying tactics is not the way out. The Government should deliberate on the
issue properly and till a resolution acceptable to both parties is
reached, it should honour the current system in place. 1260
The ban on the wearing of hijab in educational institutes
is an explosive matter as the arguments entail a wide1280 spectrum of issues, ranging from
the highly emotive religious angle to the question of the right to equality and
freedom1300 of choice and expression, as also fulfilling the purpose of
providing access to education to the Muslim girls. In the long-term interest
of the young and minor schoolgirls who will be directly impacted, it
is solely the progressive forces that should hold sway in the
decision-making. Enforcing the regressive hijab just does not hold water as it
effectively excludes the girls from co-curricular activities such as swimming,
tennis and other games that are equally important for their holistic
development. At the same time, there is no evidence of the hijab
being an essential religious practice in Islam. The insistence of1400 some leaders or sections of the Muslim community to impose this piece of
clothing on the girls smacks of a fundamentalist, patriarchal and
oppressive streak. As far as having a choice in the matter goes,
it cuts no ice unless the choice is made1440 by an adult woman, who has wilfully taken an informed decision
on donning the hijab and is well aware of her exclusion from certain fields
mandating the discipline of a dress code or a uniform. Incidentally, the deadly
protests by Iranian women against the hijab should show the mirror to all
concerned that this garment has1500 not stood the test of time. Shunning modernity is bound
to trigger an outcry, sooner or later. For
the harmony of the country, political parties must not turn hijab into a
communal issue.1533
