Karnataka High Court takes Suo Motu cognizance of staff shortage in SC/ST students' hostels
Bengaluru :The Karnataka High Court has initiated a voluntary Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in response to media reports highlighting staff shortages in hostels catering to SC/ST students under the purview of the Social Welfare Department.
The High Court has issued a notice to the Department in this regard.
The Division Bench of the High Court heard the PIL filed by the Registrar General of the High Court, prompted by an article published on December 7 in 'Taruna Bharat,' a Marathi daily from Belagavi.
Former Additional Advocate General Nitin Ramesh has been appointed as the amicus curiae to provide assistance to the court in the case.
The court has directed the registrar to furnish a copy of the PIL and other necessary documents related to the case.
The PIL, rooted in the media report, highlights the shortage of staff in hostels catering to pre-matriculation and post-matriculation SC/ST students.
Karnataka has 1,297 hostels for pre-matriculation students and 1,165 hostels for post-matriculation students operated by the Social Welfare Department.
However, the shortage of 1,200 wardens and superintendents has arisen due to irregular staff recruitment processes.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC upholds inclusion of ‘secular, socialist’ in Preamble of Constitution
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution, confirming their retrospective application from November 26, 1949. The court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 extends to the Preamble, which is an integral part of the document.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna stated, “The power under Article 368 cannot be curtailed. It will equally apply to the Preamble.” The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced these terms in 1976 during the Emergency, was challenged on grounds of its retrospective application and the lack of states’ ratification.
The petitioners, including BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, argued that the amendment forced a particular economic theory on the nation and violated the original intent of the Constitution. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay contended that the Preamble reflects the will of the people at the time of adoption in 1949 and is therefore unalterable.
The court dismissed these objections, affirming that both socialism and secularism are part of the Constitution's Basic Structure. The Bench clarified that socialism refers to a welfare state ensuring equality of opportunity without negating private sector participation or individualism. It emphasised that secularism is embedded in the Constitution, particularly in the principles of equality and fraternity.
Chief Justice Khanna remarked, “Secularism has always been a core feature of the Constitution.” He added that the amendment did not impose socialism as dogma but aligned with the welfare goals enshrined in various constitutional provisions.
