The decision to revise school timings across Kashmir from October 15 is a necessary adjustment to changing seasonal conditions. As temperatures fall and daylight hours shorten, the functioning of educational institutions must reflect the realities of winter in the Valley. However, changing the clock alone is not enough. The administration must ensure that the revised schedule genuinely eases the difficulties faced by students, teachers and parents during the colder months. Under the revised schedule, schools within Srinagar’s municipal limits will function from 10 am to 3:30 pm, while institutions outside the municipal limits and in other areas of Kashmir will operate from 10:30 am to 4 pm. The changes apply to both government and recognised private schools. Although the delayed start offers students some relief from early-morning cold, the later closing time in areas outside Srinagar’s municipal limits raises questions about the practical challenges of returning home during winter afternoons. Winter in Kashmir is not merely a seasonal inconvenience. For many students, particularly those in rural and far-flung areas, attending school involves walking considerable distances, waiting for public transport and travelling through poorly lit or foggy roads. As daylight hours shrink, an afternoon departure can expose children to additional difficulties, especially when temperatures drop rapidly towards evening. The decision to begin classes later in the morning is welcome, but the administration must also consider the timing of dispersal. An adjustment that delays the start of the school day should not unnecessarily push students’ journeys home into colder and darker conditions. The Directorate of School Education Kashmir should therefore assess whether school closing times need to be advanced further as winter progresses. A uniform schedule may be administratively convenient, but geographical differences, road conditions and variations in daylight across the Valley deserve consideration. Schools in remote areas may face challenges that institutions within Srinagar city do not encounter to the same extent. The impact of school timings extends beyond classrooms. Parents must arrange transport, teachers must commute, and school buses must complete their routes safely. Private schools, in particular, should not interpret the revised schedule as an opportunity to extend classes, conduct additional activities or delay dispersal beyond the prescribed time.

“To ensure students are not forced to choose between education and safe winter travel, authorities must align school timings with harsh weather conditions like snowfall and icy roads. Adjustments need to address the entire journey—both arriving and returning—while maintaining instructional standards, communicating changes early, and keeping student welfare at the core of all administrative decisions.”

The authorities must ensure strict implementation of the order and establish a mechanism for addressing complaints about non-compliance. Schools should communicate their schedules clearly to parents and ensure that transport arrangements remain aligned with the revised timings. At the same time, the administration must recognise that many students depend on shared transport or walk home. Their safety should carry greater weight than administrative convenience or the desire to complete a rigid timetable. Adjusting school hours should not mean compromising the quality of education. Schools must organise classroom activities efficiently and ensure that students continue to receive adequate instructional time. Any further changes should be communicated well in advance so that parents, teachers and school managements can plan accordingly. The Government should also remain prepared to review the schedule in response to severe cold waves, snowfall, icy roads or other weather-related disruptions. Seasonal adjustments must be accompanied by timely decisions when conditions become unsafe. Ultimately, the purpose of changing school timings is to make education more accessible and safer during winter. A policy that delays the morning start but overlooks the difficulties of the return journey would address only part of the problem. Children should not have to choose between attending school and travelling safely in winter conditions. The administration must keep their welfare at the centre of every decision, ensure that schools adhere to the prescribed schedule and make further adjustments wherever necessary. In Kashmir’s harsh winter, protecting students must be as important as keeping classrooms open.

Kashmir’s power crisis has once again become a source of growing frustration for the people, with frequent and unscheduled electricity cuts disrupting daily life across the Valley. Despite the existence of an announced power curtailment schedule, consumers in several areas complain that the prescribed timings are not being followed, leaving households, businesses, students and essential service providers struggling to cope with an increasingly unreliable electricity supply. The issue is no longer limited to the availability of electricity during peak winter months. It has become a question of accountability, planning and the administration’s ability to ensure that the public receives the services for which it pays. When a power schedule is announced, people naturally expect it to be followed. Repeated deviations from the announced timings undermine public confidence and make it difficult for families to organise their daily routines. Electricity is not a luxury in modern life. It is an essential service that supports education, healthcare, communication, commerce and household activities. In a region where winter temperatures can fall sharply and heating requirements increase significantly, reliable electricity becomes even more important. Unscheduled cuts during the colder months can create serious difficulties, particularly for children, elderly people, patients and families who depend on electrical appliances for their basic needs. The impact of the crisis extends well beyond residential areas. Small businesses, shopkeepers, workshops and other commercial establishments depend on a steady power supply to keep their operations running. Frequent interruptions affect productivity, increase operating costs and cause financial losses. Business owners are often forced to rely on generators or other backup arrangements, adding to their expenses at a time when the cost of living and doing business is already placing considerable pressure on ordinary people. Students preparing for examinations are among those most affected by erratic electricity supply. For many families, particularly those without reliable backup facilities, prolonged and unexpected power cuts mean disrupted study hours and additional stress. In an increasingly competitive academic environment, uninterrupted access to lighting, internet connectivity and electronic learning resources is essential. Authorities must recognise that unreliable electricity can have consequences for educational opportunities and students’ performance. The most immediate public demand, however, is straightforward: if a curtailment schedule has been issued, why is it not being followed? People may understand that electricity generation, transmission constraints, increased demand and other technical factors can create genuine challenges. What they find difficult to accept is the absence of predictability. A clearly communicated schedule allows consumers to prepare for interruptions, manage essential activities and plan their day accordingly. Unannounced cuts take away that basic certainty. The authorities responsible for power distribution must therefore explain the gap between announced schedules and the actual supply situation. If prevailing circumstances make the existing schedule impossible to implement, the public deserves a revised timetable supported by transparent information. Keeping people informed is not merely a public-relations exercise; it is an essential part of responsible administration. The Government and the concerned power department must also examine whether the present infrastructure is adequately equipped to meet demand.

“To restore public trust, Kashmir’s power authorities must move beyond paper schedules and demonstrate real accountability by providing a reliable electricity supply, realistic curtailment schedules, and transparent communication”.

Overloaded distribution transformers, ageing transmission lines, technical faults, poor maintenance and inefficient demand management can contribute to disruptions. These issues require sustained investment, timely repairs and long-term planning rather than temporary measures introduced only when public complaints intensify. At the same time, consumers must be encouraged to use electricity responsibly. Avoiding unnecessary consumption, using energy-efficient appliances and reducing wastage can help ease pressure on the system. However, public cooperation cannot become an excuse for administrative shortcomings. Conservation and responsible consumption must go hand in hand with efficient distribution, infrastructure improvement and accountability. The Government must adopt a time-bound approach to addressing the crisis. Regular monitoring of power supply, prompt repair of damaged infrastructure, effective management of peak demand and public disclosure of actual supply conditions should form part of a comprehensive strategy. Authorities should also establish an effective grievance-redressal mechanism so that consumers can report persistent violations of the announced schedule and receive timely responses. Most importantly, the concerned departments must communicate honestly with the public. If there is a shortage, explain its extent. If technical failures are responsible, identify the problems and announce corrective measures. If additional restrictions become unavoidable, issue a revised schedule and adhere to it as far as operational circumstances permit. Silence and uncertainty only deepen public resentment. Kashmir’s electricity problems cannot be resolved through announcements alone. They require practical action, transparent administration and a clear commitment to improving the reliability of supply. The public has repeatedly adjusted its expectations to accommodate the challenges faced by the power sector. It is now time for the authorities to demonstrate that they are equally committed to meeting their responsibilities. Ultimately, the issue is about more than electricity. It is about public trust. A government that announces a schedule must make every reasonable effort to honour it, and a department entrusted with an essential service must remain answerable when that service repeatedly falls short. The people of Kashmir are not demanding the impossible. They are asking for a reliable electricity supply, a realistic power curtailment schedule and transparency when circumstances change. These are reasonable expectations, not unreasonable demands. The question that remains is simple: if the announced power schedule cannot be followed, what purpose does it serve? Kashmir needs solutions, not merely schedules on paper.

The language of reform is persuasive. Simplifying procedures, attracting investment and reducing bureaucratic delays are legitimate objectives of governance. But when “ease of doing business” becomes a justification for diluting planning safeguards, the promise of economic growth can turn into a public liability. Jammu and Kashmir, with its fragile ecology, congested towns and painful experience of devastating floods, cannot afford to treat urban planning as an obstacle to investment. The Government’s latest changes to building permissions and land-use regulations raise an important question: is the administration making business easier, or making it easier to bypass the safeguards that protect communities? The distinction matters. A business-friendly government should eliminate unnecessary paperwork, curb corruption and establish predictable approval timelines. It should not weaken the checks that prevent unplanned construction, incompatible land use and environmental degradation. Residential neighbourhoods are not merely collections of plots waiting to be monetised. They are living spaces designed around particular infrastructure capacities, road widths, parking arrangements, drainage systems and public amenities. Allowing commercial activity to expand without adequate scrutiny can fundamentally alter their character. Shops, offices and other establishments may generate employment and economic activity, but they can also bring traffic congestion, noise, waste, parking disputes and pressure on water and drainage networks. The issue is not whether commercial activity should be permitted in residential areas under any circumstances. Mixed-use development, when properly planned, can make neighbourhoods more vibrant and convenient. The real concern is whether permissions are being granted according to transparent planning standards or through a relaxation of meaningful oversight. Without clear zoning rules, carrying-capacity assessments and effective enforcement, flexibility can quickly become disorder. Equally troubling are concerns surrounding building permissions and the proposed reliance on certifications by government-approved consultants. Professional certification can improve efficiency and reduce delays, but it cannot become a substitute for public accountability. If the system allows large buildings to proceed with limited scrutiny, the administration must explain precisely who verifies compliance, how violations are detected and what consequences follow when certificates prove incorrect. The credibility of any regulatory reform rests on its safeguards. A consultant’s signature may establish professional responsibility, but it cannot independently guarantee that a project is compatible with the surrounding infrastructure or that its cumulative environmental impact is acceptable. Nor should the government be able to transfer responsibility to private professionals while retaining inadequate mechanisms for inspection and enforcement. Accountability must remain clear, enforceable and visible to the public. Jammu and Kashmir’s vulnerability to flooding makes these questions particularly urgent. The devastating floods of 2014 exposed the consequences of ecological damage, inadequate drainage and development pressures on sensitive landscapes. Floodplains, wetlands, natural drainage channels and water-retention areas perform functions that cannot be replicated simply by constructing concrete drains. Encroachment and indiscriminate construction can reduce the land’s ability to absorb and channel excess water, increasing risks for entire communities.

“Jammu and Kashmir’s regulatory reforms require objective scrutiny to balance economic growth with environmental and public safety safeguards. Genuine reform must streamline approvals and penalize administrative delay while strictly enforcing zoning, building codes, and ecological protections. Accelerating development without regulatory accountability risks long-term environmental degradation and public cost; true progress lies in fostering business efficiency without sacrificing public safety, dignity, and environmental security.”

Climate change adds another dimension to the challenge. More intense rainfall events can place additional pressure on already vulnerable urban infrastructure. Planning decisions made today will determine how safely towns and cities respond to tomorrow’s environmental stresses. Treating ecological restrictions as procedural inconveniences would be short-sighted, particularly in a region where natural systems are integral to public safety. The Government’s responsibility is therefore not simply to facilitate investment but to ensure that development serves the public interest. Before implementing consequential relaxations, it should publish clear explanations of the changes, disclose the safeguards retained, consult urban planners and environmental experts, and assess the implications for flood-prone and densely populated areas. The notified provisions must be examined transparently, rather than allowing either official assurances or political allegations to substitute for scrutiny. A credible reform agenda would digitise applications, impose time-bound decisions, standardise requirements and penalise arbitrary delays. At the same time, it would strengthen building inspections, protect environmentally sensitive areas, enforce zoning restrictions and make officials and certifying professionals answerable for violations. Faster approvals and stronger safeguards are not contradictory goals; a competent administration must deliver both. Jammu and Kashmir needs jobs, entrepreneurship and private investment. But growth that overwhelms neighbourhoods, degrades wetlands or increases flood exposure is not sustainable development. Its costs are eventually borne by residents, taxpayers and future generations. Ease of doing business should mean freedom from bureaucratic harassment, not freedom from responsibility. When regulatory efficiency is measured only by how quickly construction and commercial projects receive approval, the government risks confusing speed with progress. The true measure of reform is whether it creates an environment where businesses can prosper without compromising the safety, dignity and environmental security of the people who live around them.

Jammu and Kashmir’s growing push towards rooftop solar is encouraging, but the latest review of the programme also underlines a familiar challenge: announcing targets is easier than ensuring that projects are actually completed, commissioned and used effectively. The Union Territory has achieved 55.24 per cent of its residential rooftop solar target under the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana, with 46,133 installations against a target of 83,500 by March 2027. The figure is higher than the national progress of 50.80 per cent and indicates that there is considerable public interest in adopting solar energy. Yet, the numbers also reveal gaps that cannot be ignored. Against 89,680 applications received, only 42,686 rooftop systems have been commissioned. While thousands of applications are at different stages, the difference between applications, vendor selection, agreements and actual commissioning shows that the programme still has a substantial implementation pipeline. Financing is one of the biggest obstacles. Around 75 per cent of rooftop installations in KPDCL areas depend on bank loans. Of 61,566 loan applications, 17,416 have been rejected, while 38,773 have been sanctioned and disbursed and 5,367 remain under process. The high number of rejected applications deserves closer scrutiny. If technically eligible households are being prevented from installing solar systems because of avoidable banking procedures, the objective of the programme is being weakened. The government’s decision to ask Discoms to examine rejected cases with banks is therefore important. But this intervention should result in a transparent mechanism through which applicants are informed about the reasons for rejection and given a clear opportunity to address deficiencies. Vendor availability is another practical concern. Rooftop solar cannot expand merely through government targets if consumers cannot find reliable and adequately distributed installation agencies. Vendors need to be available across districts, particularly in remote and rural areas, while quality standards and after-sales service must also be monitored. The government’s solarization of its own buildings presents an even larger opportunity. As many as 8,850 government buildings have reportedly been solarized under the CAPEX programme, with a combined capacity of 95.64 MW. This is significant, but installation alone should not be treated as the final measure of success. Meters, grid connectivity, PPAs and commissioning are equally important. A solar system lying idle because a meter has not been installed or an agreement remains pending represents public expenditure without the intended public benefit. Administrative procedures therefore need to move alongside physical construction rather than following it months later. The RESCO model deserves particular attention.

“Jammu and Kashmir’s solar transition faces the dual challenge of rising energy demands and fiscal constraints. While political commitment is strong, the focus must shift from meeting targets to ensuring actual implementation—specifically commissioning systems, generating savings, and easing public institution adoption. Success depends on streamlining subsidies, improving bank financing, expanding vendor networks, and resolving procedural hurdles like metering and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to achieve a durable energy transformation.”

The proposal to solarize 8,000 government buildings with a combined capacity of 152 MW offers an opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing the entire upfront financial burden on government departments. But the relatively slow progress under this component suggests that closer monitoring and stronger coordination are required. For Jammu and Kashmir, rooftop solar has implications beyond reducing electricity bills. The region faces rising energy requirements, pressure on public finances and the need to make its energy system more resilient and environmentally sustainable. Government buildings, schools, hospitals and other public institutions can become visible examples of how renewable energy can work in practice. At the same time, the transition must remain consumer-friendly. Subsidies need to reach beneficiaries without unnecessary delays, bank financing should be accessible, vendors must provide dependable service and grievance redressal mechanisms should be simple. The next phase of J&K’s solar programme should therefore be judged not simply by the number of applications received or systems installed, but by how many systems are actually commissioned, generating electricity and delivering savings to households and public institutions. The government has demonstrated political and administrative commitment to the solar transition. The priority now should be to close the gap between targets and outcomes. Removing financing hurdles, ensuring adequate vendor networks, completing metering and PPAs and closely monitoring RESCO projects can turn J&K’s solar ambition into a durable energy transformation. For a region with abundant sunlight and growing energy needs, the opportunity is too important to be lost in procedural delays.

The Srinagar Municipal Corporation’s decision to make home composting mandatory for its Gazetted Officers is a small but significant step in addressing one of the city’s most persistent civic challenges: the growing volume of waste generated every day. The order issued by Municipal Commissioner Faz Lul Haseeb requires Gazetted Officers, wherever practicable, to segregate biodegradable and wet waste generated at their residences and process it through appropriate home-composting methods. Officers have also been asked to submit geotagged photographs within 10 days as evidence of compliance, while designated officials will maintain records and submit consolidated reports. At one level, the directive is aimed at a relatively limited group of residents. Its larger significance, however, lies in the principle behind it. Waste management cannot be the sole responsibility of municipal workers, collection vehicles and processing facilities. It has to begin at the point where waste is generated — in homes, offices, markets and institutions. Srinagar’s waste problem cannot be solved simply by increasing the number of vehicles or expanding dumping and processing facilities. The more waste that is generated and mixed at source, the greater the burden on the entire municipal system. Wet waste, in particular, can be composted locally in many households, reducing the quantity that needs to be collected, transported and processed elsewhere. Home composting also offers an opportunity to change public attitudes towards waste. Kitchen leftovers, vegetable peels, fruit waste and other biodegradable material are often treated as something to be discarded. With simple and scientifically appropriate methods, much of this material can instead be converted into compost that can be used for gardens, plants and soil improvement. The decision to begin with Gazetted Officers is understandable. Senior officials of a civic institution are not only administrators; they are also expected to demonstrate the standards that the institution seeks to establish among citizens. If municipal officers themselves practise segregation and composting at home, the message carries greater credibility when the Corporation asks ordinary residents to adopt similar practices. However, the success of the initiative will depend on how it is implemented. Compliance should not become merely a photographic exercise. A geotagged photograph can establish that a composting unit exists, but it cannot necessarily establish whether it is being used properly or whether waste is actually being segregated on a daily basis. The Corporation should therefore consider periodic and random verification, along with practical guidance for officers and residents. Not every household has the same space, housing pattern or resources.

“Srinagar’s path to a cleaner future isn’t about better dumping grounds; it’s about a complete cultural reset. By trading passive governance for active civic partnership—championing source segregation, home composting, and shared accountability—we can transform waste management from an administrative chore into a powerful community movement.”

The order itself recognises this by using the phrase “wherever practicable”. That flexibility is important and should be applied fairly. There is also a wider question. If home composting is useful for municipal officers, why should its benefits remain confined to them? The SMC could gradually expand awareness programmes for households, residential colonies, schools, markets and other institutions. Instead of relying only on enforcement, it could encourage adoption through demonstrations, training and easily accessible information about different composting methods. The Corporation should also ensure that source segregation does not stop at households. Wet and dry waste must remain separated through collection, transportation and processing. If residents segregate waste but it is subsequently mixed by the collection or transportation system, public confidence in the programme will inevitably suffer. Similarly, decentralised composting should form part of a broader waste-management strategy rather than being treated as a standalone solution. Srinagar needs better segregation, efficient door-to-door collection, recycling, scientific processing of different categories of waste and responsible disposal of material that cannot be reused or processed. The initiative also provides an opportunity to rethink the relationship between citizens and the municipal administration. Cleanliness is often viewed as a service provided by the government, while citizens are treated primarily as beneficiaries. In reality, effective waste management requires shared responsibility. The SMC’s directive can therefore become more than an administrative order if it is used to build a culture of responsibility. Senior officials leading by example can help demonstrate that waste management is not an issue that begins at a landfill or processing plant. It begins in the kitchen, office and neighbourhood. For Srinagar, the larger objective should be to move from a system that primarily manages waste after it has been generated to one that reduces, segregates and processes waste at source. Home composting alone will not solve the city’s waste problem. But if implemented seriously and expanded thoughtfully, it can become one important part of a much-needed shift towards a cleaner, more decentralised and sustainable waste-management system.

The Jammu and Kashmir Government’s move to raise the retirement age of Judicial Officers from 60 to 62 years has opened a wider debate over whether the retirement age prescribed for other categories of government employees also deserves a fresh review. The two issues are not identical. Judicial Officers have a distinct service structure, and the proposed extension follows a wider judicial debate, including the Supreme Court’s direction to States and Union Territories to consider increasing the age of superannuation in the district judiciary. Yet the decision has naturally brought the broader question of retirement age in public service into focus. For government employees, the retirement age represents a balance between retaining experienced personnel and creating opportunities for recruitment and promotion. Any change in this balance has consequences across the public service. Those supporting a higher retirement age can point to the experience and institutional knowledge accumulated by senior employees. In many departments, experienced officials possess knowledge of procedures, institutional history and administrative practices that cannot be easily replaced. Allowing them to serve for an additional period can help institutions retain that experience and ensure continuity. The nature of public service has also changed considerably. Many employees remain professionally active and capable beyond the existing retirement age. In specialised fields, years of experience can be particularly valuable. A review of retirement rules, therefore, need not necessarily be viewed only through the traditional age-based framework. At the same time, there are valid concerns about extending the retirement age. Government employment operates through a cycle of recruitment, promotion and retirement. If employees remain in service for longer, vacancies may arise less frequently. This can affect recruitment opportunities as well as the promotional prospects of employees waiting to move up the service hierarchy. The financial implications also require careful consideration. Extending service means that salaries and other employment-related expenditure continue for longer, while retirement-related liabilities are deferred. Any broad increase in retirement age would therefore require a detailed assessment of its financial impact. A uniform policy may also not be suitable for every department. The requirements of the judiciary, education, healthcare, technical institutions, administration and field services can vary considerably. Some categories may benefit from retaining experienced personnel, while others may require regular recruitment and greater turnover.  The Government could therefore consider a department-wise assessment before taking any wider decision.

“A balanced review of government recruitment and retirement age limits is needed in Jammu and Kashmir. Re-examining the upper age limit helps offset recruitment delays and ensures fair entry opportunities for job aspirants, matching measures that retain experienced employees.”

Retirement patterns, vacancies, promotion structures, recruitment requirements, financial implications and the nature of individual services should form part of such an assessment. However, the debate cannot end with the question of how long existing employees should remain in service. If the retirement age is increased, the Government should simultaneously consider the position of those seeking entry into government service. The upper age limit for government recruitment deserves a fresh review, particularly for job aspirants who remain eligible and capable of serving but cross the existing age ceiling before they get adequate opportunities to compete. Extending the upper age limit from the present ceiling, within a reasonable and clearly defined framework, could help maintain a balance between longer service for existing employees and continued opportunities for new entrants. Such a measure would not mean that age limits should be removed altogether. Recruitment rules serve an important purpose and must remain predictable and fair. But the Government can examine whether the present upper age limit remains appropriate in view of changing recruitment patterns, delays between vacancy identification and selection, and the evolving nature of public employment. A balanced policy should therefore look at both ends of the government service cycle—how long employees remain in service and how long job aspirants remain eligible to enter it. If experienced employees are given additional years of service, aspiring candidates should also have a reasonable opportunity through a corresponding review of the recruitment age limit. The debate should ultimately move beyond the simple question of whether retirement should be at 60 or 62. The larger issue is how Jammu and Kashmir can maintain an experienced, efficient and responsive public service while ensuring regular recruitment and career progression. A comprehensive review of both retirement and recruitment age limits could provide a more balanced framework. It would allow the Government to retain valuable experience while ensuring that age alone does not unnecessarily close the door on otherwise eligible job aspirants. Any such decision, however, should be based on administrative requirements, recruitment data, financial considerations and the specific needs of different services.

The Jammu and Kashmir Government’s latest assertion that no private school can raise or collect fees without prior approval from the Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee (FFRC) awaiting the appointment of a full fledged Chairperson for about last nine month is not merely a routine administrative reminder—but it is an acknowledgment of a persistent failure to effectively regulate a sector that has increasingly drifted from its educational mission towards commercial interests. The need for regulation is not new; what is new is the growing public frustration over a system where education, a fundamental social good, is often treated as a marketplace commodity. Education Minister Sakeena Itoo has reiterated that the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2022 provides safeguards against profiteering by linking fee structures to audited expenses, infrastructure, and a “reasonable surplus.” However, experience suggests that these safeguards have not adequately protected parents from arbitrary financial burdens. In practice, many private institutions have mastered the art of operating within regulatory grey zones, using broad and loosely defined provisions to justify steep fee increases. The term “reasonable surplus,” intended to ensure institutional sustainability, has frequently become a convenient justification for expanding profit margins. Parents are routinely presented with higher fee structures, additional charges, and compulsory expenditures, often with little transparency regarding actual costs. Investments in infrastructure, technology, smart classrooms, or upgraded facilities are repeatedly cited as reasons for fee hikes, yet detailed financial disclosures remain rare. The absence of publicly accessible audits fuels suspicion that some institutions are leveraging education as a lucrative business rather than a public service. This trend reflects a deeper and more troubling shift: the commercialization of schooling itself. Education is increasingly being marketed through luxury infrastructure, branding exercises, and premium services that create an impression that quality learning is inseparable from high expenditure. The classification of schools according to infrastructure standards—while administratively logical—has also contributed to a stratified system where access to better educational opportunities is determined by economic capacity rather than merit or need. The consequences are serious. Rising educational costs place immense pressure on middle-class and lower-income families, forcing many households to stretch finances, incur debt, or compromise on other essential needs. Education, which should serve as a vehicle for social mobility and equality, risks becoming another marker of economic division. A society that allows quality education to become the privilege of the affluent undermines its own long-term social and economic foundations. Equally concerning is the apparent weakness in enforcement.

“Private schools must prioritize educational values over profit. Regulating arbitrary fee hikes requires mandatory public financial disclosures, safe and swift grievance redressal for parents, and strict enforcement by the Jammu and Kashmir government to ensure equity, ethical standards, and public trust in education.”

The Government’s recent statements reiterate rules but provide little indication of concrete action against violations. There is scant public information regarding penalties imposed on institutions that overcharge, ignore regulations, or adopt coercive practices. This absence of visible accountability creates the perception that rules exist largely on paper while violations continue with minimal consequences. Regulation without enforcement is ineffective. The FFRC cannot remain headless for about an year. Otherwise also FFRC had been reduced to a passive body limited to approving fee proposals under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd) Sunil Hali for about 2 years. FFRC under a new Chairperson must evolve into an active regulator equipped to conduct independent audits, investigate complaints, and publish findings in the public domain. Financial transparency should not depend on voluntary disclosure; it must be mandatory. Schools seeking fee revisions should be required to place audited accounts, expenditure details, and justifications in the public domain so that parents can understand the basis of increases. Moreover, grievance redressal mechanisms need significant strengthening. Parents often hesitate to challenge institutions due to fear of repercussions affecting their children. This imbalance of power makes it all the more important for the government to create accessible, impartial, and effective complaint systems backed by swift action. Private schools undoubtedly play an important role in supplementing the public education system and have contributed significantly to expanding educational opportunities. However, this contribution cannot become a licence for unchecked commercialisation. Institutions entrusted with shaping future generations must operate within a framework that prioritizes educational values over financial gain. The debate over school fees is not merely about economics; it is about ethics, equity, and public trust. When parents begin to view education as an expensive transaction rather than a social investment, confidence in the system erodes. Jammu and Kashmir’s Government has reiterated its intent to regulate private education, but intent alone is insufficient. Unless transparency is enforced, violations penalized, and accountability made visible, the cycle of arbitrary fee increases and public resentment will continue. Education cannot be allowed to become a marketplace where affordability determines opportunity; it must remain a right grounded in fairness and social responsibility.

The Jammu and Kashmir government’s disclosure that more than 1.3 million clerical errors in land records have been identified and rectified is significant, but the real test of this exercise will be whether it translates into greater security, transparency and confidence for ordinary landowners. Land records are not merely administrative documents. They determine ownership, inheritance, possession, partition and the ability of families to transfer or use property. Even a seemingly minor clerical mistake in a Jamabandi can create years of uncertainty and, in some cases, force citizens into prolonged revenue or legal proceedings. The scale of the errors identified therefore underlines both the importance of the ongoing correction exercise and the need for sustained scrutiny. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who also holds the Revenue portfolio, has said that verification of digitized Jamabandis is underway across all districts. The government has shifted the land-record system from an Oracle SQL-based database to PostgreSQL and introduced a three-stage Maker-Checker-Approver verification mechanism. A digital trail of changes is also being maintained, which can strengthen accountability if implemented consistently. The reported holding of more than 6,800 village-level grievance redressal camps is another important component of the process. Bringing officials closer to residents is particularly relevant in rural areas, where many landowners may not have the technical knowledge or access required to navigate digital systems. Public reading of records and direct grievance registration can help identify discrepancies that may otherwise remain unnoticed. The JK Zameen Sudhaar Portal is intended to provide another avenue by allowing citizens to inspect land records and register complaints online. Such platforms can improve accessibility, but digitization by itself does not guarantee accuracy. A wrong entry transferred from an old manual record into a digital database remains wrong. The value of technology lies in making records easier to examine, corrections easier to track and responsibility easier to establish. This is why the government’s verification mechanism assumes particular importance. The Maker-Checker-Approver system, along with district mentors, Prabhari officers and verification teams, can provide multiple layers of scrutiny. The challenge will be to ensure that these mechanisms function effectively on the ground and that corrections are made within reasonable timeframes. The issue of pending mutations is equally important. A land record can be technically digitized while still failing to reflect legitimate changes resulting from inheritance, sale, partition or other transactions.

“For Jammu and Kashmir, land-record modernization cannot just be a one-off campaign—it must be an ongoing commitment to accuracy, transparency, and trust. True success isn’t measured in statistics, but in securing citizens’ daily legal and economic peace of mind.”

The proposed Backlog Mutation Module, developed in collaboration with BISAG-N for updating Record of Rights data up to 2026, could help address this gap. Its effectiveness, however, will ultimately depend on the quality of field verification and the timely disposal of cases. There is also an important distinction between clerical errors and disputes involving questions of title or other quasi-judicial matters. Not every disagreement can be resolved simply by correcting a database entry. Revenue authorities must follow established procedures, maintain proper documentation and ensure that corrections do not inadvertently affect the rights of another party. For citizens, the most important outcome is straightforward: the record shown by the government should accurately reflect the legitimate position on the ground and in the underlying revenue documents. People should also have a clear mechanism to challenge an incorrect entry, know where their grievance stands and receive a reasoned decision. The Government’s latest disclosure is therefore an encouraging indication of an effort to clean up a complex legacy system, but the exercise cannot end with statistics about errors corrected or camps conducted. Its success should ultimately be measured by fewer disputes, faster mutations, transparent corrections and greater public confidence in revenue records. Jammu and Kashmir’s land-record modernization must remain a continuous administrative reform rather than a one-time digitization campaign. Accuracy, accessibility and accountability need to remain at its centre. For thousands of families whose property rights depend on these records, getting the Jamabandi right is not simply about updating a database—it is about protecting their everyday legal and economic security.

The once-robust system of market checking in Jammu and Kashmir — a mechanism that for decades ensured fair pricing and quality control of essential commodities — has nearly collapsed. The periodic inspections by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (FCS&CA) Department, which once kept traders in check and prices under control, have been suspended for the last more than five years. The fallout is visible everywhere: inflated rates, adulteration, and erratic quality of essentials like mutton, poultry, and vegetables. The “rotten mutton row” in the Valley this year has only brought this decay into sharper focus. With no effective oversight, prices of mutton have skyrocketed while quality has fallen. Consumers are left to the mercy of market forces, and the department, which once intervened swiftly, now appears powerless — or worse, indifferent. One of the main reasons for this decline is the department’s inadequate manpower. Years of neglect, unfilled vacancies, and lack of field staff have crippled enforcement wings. Earlier, market checking squads were routinely seen in bazaars, imposing fines and confiscating adulterated or overpriced goods. Today, those squads are either nonexistent or act with little authority. The department has been reduced to a toothless tiger — roaring on paper but incapable of biting where it matters. The onus lies squarely on the administrative leadership to restore credibility. The Directors of the Kashmir and Jammu divisions must immediately revive inspection drives and deploy whatever limited staff they have to protect consumer interests.  Even a partial resumption of regular checks would signal that the government is serious about curbing exploitation and restoring discipline in the markets.

“The current state of market inspections and food safety checks by the FCS&CA Department in Jammu and Kashmir is inadequate, hindering a healthy and fair economy. The department has been criticized as a “toothless tiger” due to a lack of accountability and staffing issues. The new leadership in the FCS&CA Department must act decisively to restore accountability, fill vacancies, and ensure that market inspections and food safety checks are implemented as essential safeguards to protect consumer rights and regain public confidence.”

Revival alone will not suffice. What J&K needs is a strong legislative mandate — a law that makes market checking a statutory obligation rather than an optional administrative exercise. The ongoing Assembly session offered an opportunity to push through such a measure but no such resolution was brought before the assembly by the Government. The law alone can define inspection schedules, fix accountability for enforcement failures, and set tough penalties for traders found guilty of profiteering or adulteration. Without legal backing, the system will remain dependent on the will or whims of individual officers. Responsibility also lies with the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies, and Consumer Affairs, who must show both political will and administrative resolve. Consumer protection is not a symbolic exercise; it is a test of governance and public trust. Equally worrying is the lax attitude of the J&K Food Safety Department, which has failed to intensify inspections despite the recent recovery of rotten meat in Srinagar and other parts of the Valley. Hotels, restaurants, and slaughterhouses continue to operate with minimal oversight, putting public health at risk. The situation demands urgent corrective action. Market inspections and food safety checks are not bureaucratic rituals but essential safeguards for a healthy and fair economy. The new leadership in the FCS&CA Department must act decisively to restore accountability, fill vacancies, and reclaim public confidence. Only then can the department shed its image as a toothless tiger and re-emerge as a true guardian of consumer rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s assurance that unnecessary No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) and regulatory requirements for private schools in Jammu and Kashmir will be reduced deserves more than a ceremonial welcome. It should become the starting point for a serious review of how the private education sector is regulated. For years, private schools have operated under a maze of permissions, renewals, inspections and clearances involving multiple departments and authorities. Regulation is necessary in education, particularly when the safety, rights and academic interests of children are involved. But regulation and bureaucratic overreach are not the same thing. The Chief Minister’s remarks at the ALOHA National Level Competition-2026 at SKICC are important because they recognise a basic reality: private schools are not merely commercial establishments seeking government permissions. They are part of the wider education system and can function as important partners in the government’s educational mission. But while the government considers reducing unnecessary NOCs, it should also examine another regulatory grey area within the private-school sector: the registration and identity of representative associations. There are instances where more than one association claims to represent private schools, while similar or overlapping names are used in public communications. This can create confusion among schools, parents, government departments and the public about which organisation is formally registered and which body legitimately represents its members. This is precisely where the Societies Registration Act and the principles governing registration of associations become relevant. The government should examine whether the existing legal framework is sufficiently clear to prevent two separate societies or associations from registering or operating under identical or confusingly similar names. The issue is not about favouring one association over another. Different groups of private schools have every right to form associations and represent their interests. The concern is that the identity of a registered organisation should be clear and distinguishable. No school, government department or member should be left wondering whether two similarly named bodies are actually the same organisation. The Government should therefore consider a transparent mechanism under which proposed societies and associations are required to undergo a name-availability and similarity check before registration. Where names are identical or likely to cause public confusion, the registering authority should require a sufficiently distinctive name.

“Private schools require effective oversight to ensure academic standards and student protection, yet current regulations often create confusion and unnecessary burdens. To support better education, existing certification processes and school associations need a transparent audit and streamlined compliance framework that eliminates redundancies while holding institutions accountable.”

A publicly accessible registry of registered societies, their approved names and basic registration details could further reduce confusion. Such a system would also bring greater transparency to representative organisations operating in the education sector. The larger principle is simple: ease of doing business must also mean ease of knowing who one is dealing with. The Government should not create unnecessary hurdles for genuine associations, but neither should regulatory ambiguity be allowed to create competing identities around the same sector. A clear legal framework can protect both the freedom to form associations and the public interest in institutional clarity. The same philosophy should apply to private schools themselves. Regulation should be necessary, transparent and proportionate. If a certificate does not protect students, ensure academic standards or serve a legitimate public purpose, its continued requirement should be questioned. The Chief Minister’s reference to “Ease of Doing” and “Ease of Establishment” therefore needs to be followed by an “Ease of Compliance” framework for schools and their representative bodies. Private schools should certainly be regulated. But regulation should help ensure better education—not become an obstacle course for institutions or a source of confusion about who legitimately represents them. The Chief Minister has made the assurance. The next step should be a transparent audit of the existing NOC regime, alongside a review of the registration and naming framework governing private-school associations. Reform should not simply mean fewer NOCs. It should mean clearer rules, fewer duplications, greater transparency and accountability for everyone involved in education.