Now, add spouse’s name to passport sans marriage cert

Now, add spouse’s name to passport sans marriage cert

Neha.Madaan@timesofindia.com 10.04.2025

Pune : Citizens can now add the name of their spouse to their passport without submitting a marriage certificate, thanks to the introduction of ‘Annexure J’ option. 

A senior passport official said the new MEA guidelines would significantly simplify the amendment process. “The joint photo declaration (Annexure J), signed by both husband and wife, now serves as a valid alternative to the traditional marriage certificate requirement that many found difficult to fulfill,” 

Pune’s regional passport officer Arjun Deore told TOI.

“Given MEA is streamlining the documentary process, this change addresses a significant regional disparity. In Maharashtra, marriages are registered by default. But in northern states, many don’t register marriages and thus, don’t possess marriage certificates,” said another senior passport official. 

The ‘Annexure J’ form serves as a joint declaration in lieu of a marriage certificate for passport applicants. The document requires passport applicants to declare their name and residence, and affirm that they are married to their spouse, stating they have been living together as a married couple. The applicant must request that their passport be issued or reissued with their spouse’s name included. The form includes a solemn affirmation that all provided information is correct. 

“A designated space is provided for a self-attested joint photograph of the husband and wife. The form must include the place and date of signing, along with signatures of spouses. Additional details required include names, Aadhaar card numbers, voter ID numbers and passport numbers (if available) of both parties,” Deore said

Patient follows doctor and seeks consultation while he was jogging: This is what the doc did

 Patient follows doctor and seeks consultation while he was jogging: This is what the doc did

etimes.in | Apr 9, 2025, 04.00 PM IST

Have you ever been taken aback by a life lesson that a doctor taught you? Here's one such lesson taught by Dr Sudhir Kumar who recently shared an incident that talks about self-care in volumes.

Dr Sudhir Kumar's post on social media talks about self-care and why it is important. In a country, where there are few doctors to attend to hundreds and thousands of patients, Dr Kumar's post is a lesson for all the doctors who find less time to take care of themselves. The life of doctors in India is a mix of dedication, pressure, and purpose. From long, demanding study years to intense hospital shifts, their journey is filled with sacrifice. Many work extended hours, often in overcrowded hospitals with limited resources, especially in public healthcare.

"A few days back while running, a person on his two-wheeler stopped beside me, and requested a follow-up consultation (he had consulted me about six weeks earlier). I requested him to consult me at hospital. When he visited me at the hospital a few days later, he was upset that I gave more importance to running that doing a follow-up consultation (on the road). I told him: I care about my health and there is a proper place (and time) for medical consultation. He was still not convinced with my explanation," Dr Kumar has posted on social media platform X.

"I remember my train journeys from CMC Vellore (Tamil Nadu) to Bokaro (Bihar, now Jharkhand) in 90s. Journey was about 40 hours+. The moment co-passengers got to know that I am a doctor, the entire journey would become a place for consultation, second opinion, and all sorts of medical advice. Later on, when asked about my job during journeys, I used to say, I work as an office assistant," he writes.

Netizens and fellow doctors were quick to respond.

"I stopped using Dr as a prefix when I was awoken from sleep to tend to a train passenger. No 'thank you' followed. Responding to requests of air hostesses to rush to a hypoglycaemic patient and keep sitting beside him thro the journey, I expected gratitude," one X user has commented.

"It happens in family weddings as well. We have a cousin who is a doctor. Whenever we all assemble for a wedding in that city, each one of us discuss our health issues to get some solutions or ideas on how to proceed, especially oldies," writes another.

Read the post here:

Why self-care is less talked about in medical profession?

In the medical profession, self-care often takes a backseat due to the deeply ingrained culture of self-sacrifice and constant service. From the earliest stages of training, doctors are taught to prioritize patients above all else. Long hours, minimal sleep, and emotional detachment are often seen as badges of honor—symbols of dedication. As a result, many healthcare professionals internalize the belief that taking care of their own well-being is a sign of weakness or lack of commitment.

The fear of judgment or stigma plays a role. Admitting to stress, anxiety, or burnout may be perceived as incompetence or an inability to cope with the pressures of the job. This discourages open conversations about mental health and self-care within the medical community.

Systemic issues also contribute. Overburdened hospitals, staff shortages, and the relentless demand for care leave little time or space for self-care practices. Even institutional policies often fail to address the wellness needs of healthcare workers.

The irony is stark: those trained to heal others often neglect themselves. However, this relentless commitment can lead to physical exhaustion, emotional fatigue, and mental burnout. Long working hours, sleep deprivation, emotionally charged situations, and the constant pressure to perform flawlessly take a toll on their overall well-being. This is why self-care is not a luxury for doctors—it’s a necessity.

Regular sleep, balanced nutrition, physical activity, and moments of rest and reflection are essential to sustain their energy and focus. Mental health support, mindfulness practices, and taking breaks from high-pressure environments allow them to process stress and prevent compassion fatigue.

When doctors take care of themselves, they’re more resilient, empathetic, and better equipped to handle the demands of their profession. A well-rested, emotionally balanced doctor is less prone to errors and more capable of forming meaningful connections with patients.

NEWS TODAY 8.4.2025

 

Governors Must Not Create Roadblocks For Elected Governments, Must Respect People's Will: Supreme Court

Governors Must Not Create Roadblocks For Elected Governments, Must Respect People's Will: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

8 Apr 2025 12:16 PM

The Court stated that the Governors must not thwart the will of the people for political ends.

In a significant judgment underscoring the constitutional role of Governors, the Supreme Court has called upon them to act with "due deference" to the principles of parliamentary democracy and the will of the people, warning against actions that may obstruct or undermine the functioning of elected state governments.

"We are not undermining the office of the Governor," the Court observed while delivering a strong reminder of the limits and responsibilities of the post. "All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of the Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people."

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made these important observations while declaring as illegal the Tamil Nadu Governor's withholding of the assent on ten bills re-enacted by the State Assembly and their reservation for the President.

The Court highlighted that the Governor is expected to act as a "friend, philosopher and guide" and not as a political actor. His role, the judgment stated, must be “guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the Constitutional oath he undertook.” It added that in moments of political tension, the Governor must work as “a harbinger of consensus and resolution,” using wisdom and discretion to support state governance rather than impede it.

“The Governor must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor,” the Court emphasized, urging that the office should help facilitate the functioning of the state machinery rather than bringing it to a standstill.

Importantly, the judgment cautioned that any attempt by the Governor to stall legislative processes or subvert the electoral mandate would amount to a betrayal of the Constitution:

"The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends... any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature, would be a renege on the Constitutional oath."

The Court also stressed that those holding high constitutional offices must be guided by the enduring values of the Constitution, which were born out of the struggles and sacrifices of India's founding leaders. "When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give into ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution."

Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, concluded with a poignant quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: “However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”

The exact words from the judgment are quoted below :

"We are not undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of the Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, a philosopher and guide, with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the Constitutional oath he undertook. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity and wisdom, and not bring it to a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor. All his actions must be taken keeping in mind the high constitutional office he occupies. It is imperative that all his actions must be guided by true allegiance to his oath and he faithfully executes his functions. The Governor as the Constitutional head of the State is obliged to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people of the State and earnestly work in harmony with the State machinery.

The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends. The members of the State legislature have been elected by the people of the State as a result of the democratic outcome are better attuned to ensure the well-being of the people. Hence, any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature, would be a renege on the Constitutional oath."

"The Constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution. These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggles and sacrifices by our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give into ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by the Constitutional oath and the course of actions adopted by them furthers the ideals of the Constitution. "

Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President's Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides

Supreme Court Sets Aside TN Governor's Decision To Reserve 10 Bills For President's Assent; Says He Acted Without Bona Fides

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

8 Apr 2025 10:58 AM

The Supreme Court today (April 8) held that the action of the Tamil Nadu Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 10 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020, and reserving them to the President after they were re-enacted by the State Legislature is "illegal and erroneous" in law and liable to be set aside.

Any consequential steps which might have been taken by the President on the said ten bills were also declared non-est in law.

The Court declared that the ten Bills would be deemed to have received the assent of the Governor when they were presented in the second round after they were passed again by the State Assembly.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor did not act with bona fides, as the bills were sent to the President, after the Governor himself sat over them over a long time, and were reserved for the President soon after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Punjab Governor's case, which held that the Governors cannot veto the bills by sitting over them.

No pocket veto or absolute veto on bills

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under the Constitutional scheme. As per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor is expected to take one of the three courses of action on bills - grant assent to bills, withhold assent to bills or reserve the bills for the President. The Court held that the Bill can be reserved for the President only at the first instance.

"As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the President after the bills have been re-presented by the Government after being passed again by the Assembly. The only exception is when the bill presented in the second round is different from the first version," Justice Pardiwala read out from the judgment.

If the Governor withholds assent to the bill, then they must be sent to the Assembly

The Court also held that the option under first proviso to Article 200 is not an independent option, and that this must be exercised in conjunction with the power in the substantive clause of Article 200. This means that once the Governor declares that he was withholding assent to the bills, then he must send back the bills to the assembly for reconsideration. In this case, the Attorney General had argued that when the Governor declared that he was withholding assent, he did not send them to the Assembly, and hence it was not open for the Assembly to re-enact them. This argument was rejected.

Timelines laid down

"Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with the timelines will make the action of the Governor subject to judicial review," the Court observed.

1. In case of withholding assent or reservation of the Bill for consideration of the President upon aid and advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such actions forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month.

2. In case of withholding assent contrary to the advice of the State's Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the Bill together with a message within a maximum period of 3 months.

3. In case of reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, contrary to advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of 3 months or

4. In case of reservation of Bills after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith subject to a maximum period of 1 month (This means that bills re-enacted by the Assembly after they were sent back by the Governor, must be assented by the Governor in the second round within one month)

Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the State Government

The Court held that as a general rule, the Governor has to act as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 200. The Governor does not possess any discretion and has to mandatorily act on aid and advice once the bills have been re-enacted.

The only exception is when the Bills fall under the description of the second proviso to Article 200 (bills affecting the powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court).

Conclusions

Justice Pardiwala read out the following conclsuions :

1. The withholding of assent or the reservation of bills for the consideration of the President on 28.11.2023, after their due re-consideration by the State legislature, being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, is declared erroneous in law, non-est and thus hereby set aside.

2. As a result of the above finding, any consequential steps that might have been taken by the President on these ten bills is equally non-est and hereby set aside.

3. Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these bills were kept pending by the Governor, before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent, and in view of the scant respect shown by the Governor to the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab, and for the other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in discharge of his functions, we are left with no choice but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare these ten bills to have been deemed to have got assented.

Governors must not create roadblocks, must respect the will of the people

In the judgment, the Court reminded the Governors of their roles and duties, by observing :

"We are not undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of the Parliamentary democracy, respecting the will of the people expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people. He must perform his role of a friend, a philosopher and guide, with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the Constitutional oath he undertook. In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity and wisdom, and not bring it to a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor. All his actions must be taken keeping in mind the high constitutional office he occupies. It is imperative that all his actions must be guided by true allegiance to his oath and he faithfully executes his functions. The Governor as the Constitutional head of the State is obliged to accord primacy to the will and welfare of the people of the State and earnestly work in harmony with the State machinery.

The Governor must be conscious to not create roadblocks or chokehold the State legislature in order to thwart and break the will of the people for political ends. The members of the State legislature have been elected by the people of the State as a result of the democratic outcome are better attuned to ensure the well-being of the people. Hence, any expression contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature, would be a renege on the Constitutional oath."

"The Constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution. These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggles and sacrifices by our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give into ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by the Constitutional oath and the course of actions adopted by them furthers the ideals of the Constitution. "

Justice Pardiwala ended the judgment by quoting BR Ambedkar, "however good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad"

Live updates from the pronouncement can be read here.

On February 10, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved judgment on the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against its Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for the bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020. Once the Bills were re-enacted in a special session by the Government, the Governor sent some of the re-passed laws to the President for reconsideration.

Various constitutional issues concerning the interpretation of Article 200 and factual questions have emerged from the four days of the hearing. The bench formulated eight questions for the parties during the hearing.

To briefly summarise, the petitioners have argued that the action of the Governor sitting over the Bills for 3 years and then one fine day, declaring that he is withholding assent and when the Bills are passed again, reserving it to the President are violative of Article 200. Therefore, the Governor's declaration is held to be void.

As per the petitioners' arguments, the Governor has three options under Article 200 when the Bill is sent to him: assent, reserve for reconsideration of the President and withhold the assent. The State argued that if the Governor reserves it for the President's reconsideration, he has to do so at the first instance. However, if he does not exercise that, the next recourse is to send the Bill to the State legislature. Here, it was argued that as per the Punjab Governor's decision(which was pronounced at a time when the Tamil Nadu Governor decided to send the re-enacted Bills to the President), if the Governor was withholding the assent, then he should return the bills to the assembly.

Whereas, the Respondent submitted that what troubled the Governor was repugnancy with the central laws and nothing else and therefore, in the national interest, he sent it to the President. During the proceedings, the Court had orally remarked that the Governor had adopted his own procedure on withholding assent. The Court had also questioned on the submission of Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, that the Governor found the Bills to be repugnant. It was argued that the Governor by withholding the assent communicated the repugnancy but not for the State legislature to re-enact the Bills subsequent to which it was sent to the President.

The Court asked if the Governor had found the Bills repugnant, why did he continue to withhold them without informing the Legislative Assembly.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P Wilson appeared for the State. Attorney General R Venktaramani appeared for the Governor.

Case Details: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023 & THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 1271/2023

Governor Can't Reserve Bill For President's Assent After It Was Re-Enacted By Assembly : Supreme Court

Governor Can't Reserve Bill For President's Assent After It Was Re-Enacted By Assembly : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

8 Apr 2025 7:33 PM

In an important judgment interpreting Article 200 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that a Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the assent of the President once it has been re-enacted by the State Legislative Assembly after the Governor had withheld his assent in the first instance.

The Court held that if the Governor has to reserve a Bill for the President's assent, then it must be done at the first instance itself. If a Governor decides to withhold assent for the Bill, then he must mandatorily send it back to the State Assembly. When the Assembly re-enacts the Bill after it was send back by the Governor, then the Governor has no option to reserve it to the President.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the Tamil Nadu Governor's decision to reserve the 10 Bills for the consideration of the President after they were reenacted by the State Legislature, was illegal and liable to be set aside.

The Court stated that on two accounts, the Governor failed to act in a bona fide manner. First, the Governor had withheld his assent on the Bills but refused to communicate to the State Legislature why he was withholding the assent. Despite that, in the meanwhile, the State Legislature reenacted those Bills.

Second, soon after the Supreme Court pronounced its Punjab Governor's judgment wherein it was stated that the Governor cannot exercise absolute veto and sit over the Bills forever and he must return it to the State Legislature, the Tamil Nadu Governor immediately communicated that he has reserved those re-enacted Bills for the President's consideration.

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala stated :

As a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President once it was presented before him in the second round after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso(of Article 200). The use of the expression 'shall not withhold assent thereof' appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and clear enunciation on the requirement that the Governor must accept the Bills which is presented to him after complying with the provisions laid down in the first proviso.

Consequently, the Court stated that it disagreed with the ratio of B.K. Pavithra judgment, also pronounced by the two-judge bench, that the Constitution confers discretion upon the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

The Court held that the Governor did not have discretion to refer the Bills to President after their re-enactment.

"We say so because of the removal of the expression 'in his discretion' from Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 when it was being adopted as Article 200 of the Constitution clearly indicates that any discretion available to the Governor under the Act 1935 in respect of reservation of Bills became unavailable with the commencement of the Constitution. It also manifests that the decision in B.K. Pavithra is not in consonance with the observations made by the larger bench decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh."

The Court added that the only exception where the Governor can reserve the re-enacted Bills for the consideration of the President is when the Bills presented in the second round are different from those presented in the first round. In such a case, the Governor can exercise either of the three options to assent, withhold the assent or reserve it for the President.

In the facts of the present case, the reservation by the Governor of the 10 Bills for the consideration of the President in the second round would be termed as illegal, errornous in law and liable to be set aside. As a result, any subsequent act taken by the President on the said Bills does not survive and set aside.The Bills having been pending before the Governor for an unduly long period of time and the Governor having acted not bona fides in reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President immediately after the pronouncement of the decision by this Court in the State of Punjab are deemed to have assented by the Governor on the date it was presented to him after reconsideration.

The Court further added that withholding the assent is not an independent power and it has to be read with action to return the Bill to the State Legislature.

The first proviso to Article 200 must be read in conjunction to the option of withholding assent provided in the substantive part of Article 200. It is not an independent course of action and has to be mandatorily initiated by the Governor in cases where the option of withholding the assent is to be exercised. The decision of this Court in State of Punjab lays down the correct position in this regard. The expression "the bills fall through unless the procedure in the first proviso is followed as used in Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary signifies that once the Governor declares withholding of assent, and returns the Bill to House or Houses, the Bill would lapse or fall through unless the House or Houses reconsider the Bill in accordance with suggestions made by the Governor and presented to him after re-passing.

The expression unless the procedure under first proviso is followed, it cannot be construed to mean that the Governor exercises discretion in sitting the machinery prescribed in first proviso in motion. Once the Governor exercises the option of withholding the assent, he is under an obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the first proviso 'as soon as possible'. The decision of this Court in State of Punjab cannot be said to be per incurim. The observations made in the decision in regards to attaching of the first proviso with the option of withholding the assent is supported in the decision of Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary.

தேவை... திறன்களை மதிப்பிடும் முறை!

தேவை... திறன்களை மதிப்பிடும் முறை! 

]இன்றைய அவசர உலகில் மாணவா்கள் பல்வேறு திசைதிருப்பல்களுக்கு மத்தியில் தோ்வுக்கு தயாராவது என்பது கடினமே.

ENS Din Updated on: 08 ஏப்ரல் 2025, 2:48 am 

முனைவா் என்.மாதவன்

கேரள மாநிலத்தின் கல்வித் துறை அண்மையில் ஒரு சுற்றறிக்கை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது. அதன்படி, எட்டாம் வகுப்பு பயிலும் மாணவா்களில் இறுதித் தோ்வில் 30 சதவீத மதிப்பெண்களுக்குக் குறைவாக எடுப்பவா்கள், குறிப்பிட்ட கால அளவு சிறப்பு பயிற்சி எடுத்துக் கொண்டு மீண்டும் தோ்வெழுத வேண்டும். அவ்வாறு தோ்வெழுதி தோ்ச்சி பெறுவோா் மட்டும் அடுத்த வகுப்புக்கு அனுப்பப்படுவா்.

அப்படியும் 30 சதவீத மதிப்பெண் எடுக்க இயலாதோா் எட்டாம் வகுப்பிலேயே மீண்டும் பயில வேண்டும். இதற்கான கால அட்டவணையையும் வெளியிட்டுள்ளது. அதன்படி ஏப்ரல் 8 முதல் 24 வரை மாணவா்களுக்கு சிறப்பு பயிற்சி அளிக்கப்படும். ஏப்ரல் 25 முதல் 28 வரை தோ்வுகள் நடைபெறும்.

ஏப்ரல் 30 - ஆம் தேதி தோ்வு முடிவுகள் வெளியாகும். ‘ஓராண்டைச் சேமியுங்கள்’ ( சேவ் ஏ இயா்) என்ற தலைப்பில் இந்த திட்டம் அமல்படுத்தப்பட உள்ளது. கேரளத்தில் செயல்படும் 3,136 பள்ளிகளில் பயிலும் மாணவா்களில் தோ்ச்சி அடைய இயலாதோா் இந்தத் தோ்வை அணுக உள்ளனா்.

நல்வாய்ப்பாக ஹிந்தி பாடத்தில் 13 சதவீத மாணவா்களும், ஆங்கில பாடத்தில் 8 சதவீத மாணவா்களும் இந்தத் திட்டத்தின்படி தோ்வை அணுக உள்ளதாக செய்திகள் வெளியாகியுள்ளன. அடுத்தடுத்த ஆண்டுகளில் 9 மற்றும் 10 - ஆம் வகுப்புகளுக்கு இந்த முறை நீட்டிக்கப்பட உள்ளது. தமிழகத்திலும் 10 மற்றும் 12 ஆம் வகுப்புகளுக்கு இதுபோன்ற உடனடித் தோ்வு நடத்தப்படுவதும் நாம் அறிந்ததே.

மேலெழுந்த வாரியாகப் பாா்க்கும்போது இது ஒரு சரியான சீா்திருத்தம் போலவே தோன்றும். உண்மையில் மாணவா்கள் குறிப்பிட்ட கற்றலடைவைப் பெற்றுத்தான் அடுத்த வகுப்புக்குச் செல்ல வேண்டும் என்பதில் யாருக்கும் மாற்றுக் கருத்து இருக்கப் போவதில்லை. ஆனால், அதே நேரம் குறிப்பிட்ட காலத்துக்குள் பயிற்சி பெற்று மீண்டும் தோ்வை எதிா்கொள்வது உடனடிப் பலனை விளைவிக்குமா என்ற கேள்வி எழுவது தவிா்க்க இயலாததே. இது எந்த அளவுக்கு அந்த குழந்தைகள் மத்தியில் மன அழுத்தத்தையும், தாழ்வு மனப்பான்மையையும் ஏற்படுத்தும் என்பதையும் கணக்கில் கொள்ள வேண்டும். கற்பித்தல் முறைகள், பாடநூல், கலைத்திட்டம் போன்றவற்றில் சீா்திருத்தங்களை மேற்கொள்வதுபோல் மதிப்பீட்டு முறைகளில் சீா்திருத்தங்களை மேற்கொள்வது அவ்வளவு எளிதல்ல. இந்தியாவில் இதற்கான நீண்ட நெடிய வரலாறு உள்ளது.

பேராசிரியா் யஷ்பால் தலைமையில் அமைக்கப்பட்ட ”சுமையற்ற கற்றல் குழுவில் தொடங்கி, தேசிய கலைத்திட்டம் -2005 வரை பல ஆரோக்கியமான பரிந்துரைகள் அளிக்கப்பட்டன. இதன் அடிப்படையில் தொடா் மற்றும் முழு மதிப்பீட்டு முறை அமல்படுத்தப்பட்டது. மாணவா்களின் கற்றல் அடைவுகளை வெறும் எழுத்துத் தோ்வு மதிப்பெண்களை மட்டும் வைத்து மதிப்பிடாமல், அவருடைய இன்ன பிற திறன்களையும் கணக்கில் கொண்டு அவா்களுக்கான மதிப்பீட்டு முறை நடைபெற வேண்டும் என்பதை இந்த முறை வலியுறுத்தியது.

மத்திய அரசின் கல்வி வாரியத்தால் முதன்முதலாக 2010 வாக்கில் இந்தியாவின் சிபிஎஸ்இ பள்ளிகளில் நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்பட்டது. பின்னா் படிப்படியாக தமிழகம் உள்ளிட்ட பிற மாநிலங்களில் உள்ள பள்ளிகளிலும் இந்த முறை மிகவும் அற்புதமான முறையில் நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்பட்டது. இந்த முறை அமலாகும்போதும், பல்வேறு விமா்சனங்கள் எழாமல் இல்லை. இந்த மதிப்பீட்டு முறைக்காக சிறப்புப் பயிற்சிகள் அளிக்கப்பட்டு, அதற்கான படிவங்கள் கொடுக்கப்பட்டு, இன்றுவரை பல்வேறு பள்ளிகளிலும் சிறப்பாக நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.

இன்றைய அவசர உலகில் மாணவா்கள் பல்வேறு திசைதிருப்பல்களுக்கு மத்தியில் தோ்வுக்கு தயாராவது என்பது கடினமே. இதில் பள்ளிக்கு இணையாக குடும்பமும் சமூகமும் பங்களிப்பு செய்ய முன்வர வேண்டும். வகுப்பறையும் ஆசிரியரும் மட்டும் அவா்களைத் தொடா்ந்து மதிப்பீடு செய்வது என்பதும் சிறப்பான விளைவை அளிக்காது. பள்ளியில் வெறும் 5 மணி நேரம் இருக்கக் கூடிய மாணவா்கள் ஏனைய நேரங்களில் வீட்டிலும் பின்ன பிற சமூக தளங்களிலும் இயங்குகின்றனா். இந்நிலையில் மாணவா்களின் வெற்றியைக் கூட்டம் கூடிக் கொண்டாடுவதுபோல, தோல்விக்கும் பெற்றோரும், சமூகமும் கூட்டாகப் பொறுப்பேற்க முன்வரவேண்டும்.

பொதுவாக இளங்கலை, முதுநிலைக் கல்வி பயில்வோரில் இரண்டாவது ஆண்டைப் பயில்வோா்கூட, முதல் ஆண்டின் பாடங்களில் தோ்ச்சியடையாதவற்றைக் கொண்டிருப்பா். அவா்களிடம் என்ன படிக்கிறீா்கள் என்று கேட்டால் இளங்கலை இரண்டாம் ஆண்டு, முதுநிலை இரண்டாம் ஆண்டு என்பாா்கள். ஆனால், அவா்களிடம் யாரும் எந்த எந்தெந்த ஆண்டுகளில் எத்தனை பாடங்களை முடித்தீா்கள் என்று கேட்கமாட்டோம். பெரியோா்களுக்கு அளிக்கப்பட்டுவரும் இந்த சலுகை போன்றே குழந்தைகளுக்கும் அளிக்கப்படவேண்டும். குறிப்பாக, மாணவா்கள் கற்றலில் எந்தெந்த திறன்களில் மேம்பாடு அடையவேண்டும் என்ற குறிப்போடு அடுத்த வகுப்புக்கு அனுப்பப்பட வேண்டும். அடுத்த வகுப்பின் ஆசிரியா், அந்த குறிப்பைப் பயன்படுத்தி அந்த குறிப்பிட்ட திறன்களை அந்த மாணவா் அடைய சிறப்புப் பயிற்சிகளை அளிக்கலாம். இந்தக் குறிப்புகள் பெற்றோா்களிடம் பரிமாறப்பட்டு அவா்களது பங்களிப்பையும் ஆண்டின் தொடக்கம் முதலே உறுதிப்படுத்தலாம்.

இவ்வாறான அணுகுமுறைக்குப் பதிலாக, இதுபோன்ற அதிரடிச் செயல்பாடுகள் விளம்பரத்துக்கு வேண்டுமானால் உதவலாமே தவிர, மாணவா்களின் செயல்திறனைக் கூட்டாது. கேரளத்தின் கல்விசாா்ந்த இந்தச் செயல்பாடு , எப்படிப்பட்ட படிப்பினைகளை அளிக்கப் போகிறது என்பதைக் காலம்தான் தீா்மானிக்கவேண்டும்.