In a major development impacting West Bengal’s education sector, the Supreme Court has permitted teachers whose appointments were cancelled earlier this month due to recruitment irregularities to continue in their roles until the state concludes a new selection process. However, this interim relief applies strictly to those educators who were not implicated in the 2016 recruitment scam.

Delivering the verdict, the apex court underscored the importance of uninterrupted education for students, noting that learners should not be made to suffer due to administrative lapses. The bench clarified that only “untainted” teachers—those not found to be involved in the irregularities exposed during investigations—would benefit from this decision.

Earlier, a large number of teaching appointments in the state were cancelled following revelations of procedural violations and corruption in the 2016 recruitment drive. This led to widespread uncertainty among both educators and students. The court’s ruling seeks to strike a balance between upholding justice and ensuring educational continuity.

The state government is now tasked with conducting a fresh recruitment drive to replace the posts affected by the earlier scandal, ensuring a transparent and merit-based selection this time.

In a provocative address to overseas Pakistanis, Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir has reiterated Islamabad’s uncompromising position on Kashmir, asserting that it remains Pakistan’s “jugular vein” and would never be forgotten. His remarks, delivered while addressing a gathering of Pakistanis abroad, are likely to provoke a strong diplomatic reaction from India.

General Munir described those residing overseas as Pakistan’s “ambassadors” and urged them to uphold what he called a “superior ideology and culture.” He framed his statements within the context of the two-nation theory, which served as the ideological foundation for the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Emphasising civilizational differences, he said, “Our forefathers thought that we are different from the Hindus in every aspect of life… our religions, our customs, traditions, thoughts and ambitions are different.”

The two-nation theory, championed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, has long been a source of ideological division between India and Pakistan. It directly opposes the vision of a united India based on secular values and shared heritage.

Assertion on Kashmir and national identity

Referring to the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, General Munir said, “It was our jugular vein, it will be our jugular vein, we will not forget it.” He further added, “We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle,” framing the Kashmir issue as central to Pakistan’s national narrative and identity.

In a broader nationalist tone, General Munir urged Pakistanis to keep narrating the country’s creation story to future generations to maintain a strong bond with the nation.

Stance on terrorism and Balochistan separatism

Touching upon concerns related to terrorism and investment, the Pakistan Army chief dismissed doubts about the country’s stability, stating, “The 1.3 million-strong Indian Army, with all its wherewithal, if they cannot intimidate us, do you think these terrorists can subdue the armed forces of Pakistan?”

On the issue of Balochistan, where separatist movements have long challenged the central authority, Munir declared the province to be “Pakistan’s pride” and warned against any illusions of secession. “You won’t be able to take it in 10 generations,” he said, pledging that the military will decisively counter separatist groups.

Implications for India-Pakistan relations

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs is yet to issue an official response, but given the sharply worded statements, diplomatic engagement or condemnation is anticipated. General Munir’s comments underscore the enduring friction between the two nations and reinforce the Pakistan Army’s dominant role in shaping Islamabad’s foreign and domestic policies.

The Supreme Court of India, during a hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, raised pointed questions to the Central government, specifically regarding the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council. The bench asked whether a reciprocal arrangement—such as allowing Muslims to be part of Hindu religious boards—would be acceptable.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan, was hearing 73 petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the amended Waqf Act. The new legislation has been the subject of protests in various regions, mainly due to its redefined provisions, including the controversial concept of ‘Waqf by user’.

At the beginning of the session, the Chief Justice sought clarity from the petitioners on two fronts: whether the case should be sent to a High Court and what specific legal arguments they aimed to raise in the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, argued that several provisions of the amended law infringe upon Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to manage one’s own religious affairs. He particularly criticized the extensive powers granted to the Collector under the new framework. According to Sibal, the Collector, being a government functionary, cannot also serve a quasi-judicial role, as it undermines the principle of separation of powers.

He also raised objections to the ‘Waqf by user’ provision—where a property may be declared as Waqf based solely on prolonged religious or charitable use, without formal documentation. While the amended Act now exempts disputed or government lands from being automatically classified as Waqf, the clause remains contentious.

The court’s query about the possible inclusion of Muslims on Hindu religious boards drew attention to what it called a lack of parity in religious governance. The top court hinted at the need for a balanced and non-discriminatory approach if religious representation is to be redefined through legislative changes.

The matter continues to evolve, with the Supreme Court yet to decide whether it will take up the entire batch of petitions or refer them to a High Court.