Mumbai: The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has recently approved eight new projects for Indian Railways which will increase the existing rail network by 900 kilometres. The projects will be undertaken in 14 districts in seven states, which include Maharashtra, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Telangana and West Bengal. The total cost of the project is estimated at Rs 24,657 crore (approximately). The Ministry of Railways plans to complete the projects by 2030-31, the Public Information Bureau has informed (PIB).

Additionally, Ajanta Caves, a UNESCO World Heritage site will be connected to Indian Railway Network facilitating a large number of tourists.

As per the press statement released by PIB, “The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs chaired by PM Narendra Modi has approved eight projects of Ministry of Railways with total estimated cost of Rs 24,657 crore (approximately). The projects will also generate direct employment for about three crore man-days during construction.”

The new line proposals will provide direct connectivity and improve mobility, providing enhanced efficiency and service reliability for Indian Railways. The projects are in line with the Vision of a New India which will make people of the region ‘Atmanirbhar’ and are the result of PM-Gati Shakti National Master Plan for multi-modal connectivity, the statement says.

The 8 projects covering 14 Districts in seven states, include Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Telangana and West Bengal and will increase the existing network of Indian Railways by 900 kilometres. With these projects 64 new stations will be constructed, providing enhancing connectivity to six districts (East Singhbum, Bhadadri Kothagudem, Malkangiri, Kalahandi, Nabarangpur, Rayagada) and approximately 510 villages with about 40 lakh population, the statement adds.

Mumbai: A slew of relaxations, offered by the Mahayuti government for Mukhya Mantri Teerth Darshan Yojana, is all set to attract hundreds of people to embark on pilgrimage at the cost of the state exchequer.

The state government has issued an order of the list of changes which makes the scheme more and more attractive. It was decided to accept applications online when the first order was issued on July 14 but now, offline applications will be accepted till October 31.

It was decided to accept an income certificate issued by the competent authority to be eligible for the state-sponsored pilgrimage. But now the ration card holders under the category of Antyodaya Food Scheme, card holders from the priority family scheme will also be considered as eligible.

Another major relaxation is set to increase the number of applications which says 1,000 beneficiaries from each of the 36 districts can be selected for the scheme. This relaxation will be given till October 31. Previously it was decided to fix a quota based on the population of the districts and selection of them will be made through a lottery system.

The state will be spending Rs30,000 for each citizen for the pilgrimage which amounts to Rs3 crore for each district of the state. According to the sources from the state administration, it is not clear if the scheme will be implemented during the period of the election code of conduct.

The Supreme Court of India has issued an interim order staying the hijab ban imposed by NG Acharya & DK Marathe College in Mumbai. The ruling came during a hearing of a petition filed by the college’s students challenging the ban on wearing hijabs, caps, and badges on campus.

“Don’t Impose Such a Rule”: SC Bench Expresses Surprise

As reported by Live Law, a bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar expressed surprise at the college’s restriction, with Justice Khanna questioning why it had not extended the ban to other markers of religion, such as tilak and bindi, if the intention was to enforce a uniform dress code.

“Can you say someone wearing a tilak will not be allowed? This is not part of your instructions?” Justice Kumar asked, as per Live Law.

“What is this? Don’t impose such a rule… what is this? Don’t reveal religion?” he further asked.

He further probed the college’s rationale, asking, “Will their names not reveal religion? Will you ask them to be identified by numbers?” He emphasised the importance of allowing students to study together without such divisive regulations.

College’s Autonomy vs. Students’ Rights

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the college, argued that as a private institution, the college had the autonomy to enforce its dress code. However, Justice Kumar challenged this by pointing out that the college had operated since 2008 without such restrictions, questioning the timing and necessity of the new rules.

SC Stays Ban, Allows Hijabs, Caps, and Badges

The Supreme Court agreed that face-covering veils, such as nakabs or burkhas, could be a barrier to classroom interaction and upheld the prohibition on such attire. However, it stayed the broader ban on hijabs, caps, and badges, allowing students to wear them on campus until further notice.

Background: Bombay High Court’s Verdict

The controversy began on May 1, when NG Acharya & DK Marathe College issued a notice on its official WhatsApp group, outlining a dress code that banned the wearing of hijab, niqab, burqa, caps, badges, and stoles on the college premises. The students, who were affected by this directive, initially approached the college management and the principal, requesting the withdrawal of the restrictions on hijab, niqab, and burqa. They cited their right to choice, dignity, and privacy in the classroom as the reason for their request.

However, when their requests were ignored, the students escalated the matter to the higher authorities, including the chancellor and vice-chancellor of Mumbai University, as well as the University Grants Commission. They sought intervention to ensure that education was imparted without discrimination. Despite their efforts, they received no response, leading them to file a petition in the Bombay High Court.

In the high court, the petitioners’ advocate, Altaf Khan, presented verses from the Quran to argue that wearing a hijab was an essential part of Islam. The plea stated that the college’s action was “arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law, and perverse.” On the other hand, the college management defended the ban as a measure to enforce a uniform dress code and maintain discipline, denying any intent to discriminate against the Muslim community. Senior counsel Anil Anturkar, representing the college, argued that the dress code applied to students of all religions and castes.