By Shree Vathsan
The person in the article below is me. I had a corporation official visit my house with the RTI and asking for my whereabouts. However the PIO has sent a reply on 8/5/19 stating that AE Div 170 is the person responsible for inspecting the banners on the particular stretch. It is after finalising this reply that I had got a call from AE Div 170 on 8/5/19 evening and a person visited my house on 9/5/19. The reply sent by PIO dated 8/5/19 was received on 11/5/19.
Further The AE has stated that he has inspected the stretch and removed illegal banners immediately. However I have material evidence that the banners remained in the same place from afternoon till late night. Only the persons who kept the banner had removed them. So can I penalise the PIO for providing false and incorrect information.
The Union ministry of women and child development has asked the MHRD’s department of school education to act on introduction of “comprehensive sexuality education”
Replying to an RTI query, ministry’s central public information officer (CPIO) Anand Prakash, also the deputy secretary, informed that he had directed the department of school education to take necessary action on the issues related to MHRD urgently, as directed by Madras HC. He also sent a copy of his reply to Dr Indrajit Khandekar, professor and in-charge of Clinical Forensic Medicine Unit (CFMU) at Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (MGIMS), Sevagram.
In the order, justice N Kirubalan had directed the central government to take a decision to introduce free and compulsory comprehensive sexuality education at the high school level. It should be done to enable students to understand gender identity, sexuality, age-related physical changes and problems, and to protect themselves from sexual advances and abuses. “India has its commitment under United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Agenda 1994, affirming the sexual and reproductive rights (SRRs) of adolescents and young people as per Article 253 of the Constitution of India,” the judge had said.
View full entry