4 lakh houses will be built in Karnataka for the underprivileged: UT Khader

New Delhi, Jun 16: The class 10 and 12 students of the CICSE board can choose not to appear for pending board exams and be marked as per their performance in pre-board exams or internal assessment, according to top officials.

The board had also submitted the proposal before the Bombay High Court on Monday in response to a petition filed by a parent seeking directions to the authorities to cancel exams in view of the spike in COVID-19 cases.

According to Gerry Arathoon, Chief Executive and Secretary, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE), the students will have to communicate their option to their respective schools by June 22.

For latest updates on coronavirus outbreak, click here

The exams which were postponed due to the lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus, are now scheduled to be conducted from July 1 to 14. However, several parents have been demanding the exams be scrapped.

"The students will be given two options---they either appear for the rescheduled exams or choose to have their results based on their performance in the pre-board exams or internal assessment. The option will be available only for the pending exams, the result of the subjects for which exams were already conducted, will be calculated as per performance in the exam only," Arathoon said.

The board also clarified that the students will not be entitled to make a subject-wise choice between the two options for pending exams.

Unlike the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which will only be conducting exams in 29 subjects crucial for promotion and admission to higher educational institutions, the CISCE will be conducting all pending exams.

The pending CBSE exams are scheduled from July 1 to 15. The schedule for the board exams has been decided in order to ensure that they are completed before competitive examinations. While the engineering entrance exam JEE-Mains is scheduled to be held from July 18 to 23, the medical entrance exam NEET is scheduled for July 26.

While the CBSE has given the option to not appear for pending board exams for differently-abled students, it has canceled the examinations for its around 250 schools situated abroad and has adopted the criteria of awarding marks on the basis of either practical exams conducted or the internal assessment marks.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on June 16

A group of parents has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the CBSE to declare results on the basis of tests already conducted, and calculate the total on an average basis with internal assessment marks of the remaining subjects.

Universities and schools across the country have been shut since March 16, when the Centre announced a countrywide classroom shut down as part of measures to contain the COVID-19 outbreak. A nationwide lockdown was announced on March 24, which came into effect the next day.

While the government has eased several restrictions, schools and colleges continue to remain closed.

According to Home Ministry guidelines, there will be no exam centres in containment zones.

"Wearing of face masks by teachers, staff and students will be mandatory. There shall be provisions of thermal screening and sanitiser at the centres and social distancing rules will have to be followed at exam centres. Special buses may be arranged by states and UTs for transportation of students to exam centres," the Home Ministry has said.

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.