The success of Thalliki Vandanam stands as a beacon of effective governance, while journalist Rao's case underscores the pitfalls of overzealous legal action.
Published Jun 14, 2025 | 7:04 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 14, 2025 | 7:04 PM
The Thalliki Vandanam Scheme, a flagship initiative under the Telugu Desam Party (TDP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s “Super Six” election promises, has emerged as a shining example of meticulous planning and execution.
Synopsis: While the Talliki Vandanam scheme has been widely lauded, the arrest of a senior journalist and the Supreme Court rebuke have put the government on the defensive
Two significant but contrasting developments in Andhra Pradesh over the past few days have put the state government’s record under scrutiny.
While the Thalliki Vandanam Scheme has been hailed as a model of effective welfare implementation, the arrest of senior journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao has drawn sharp criticism from the Supreme Court.
The Thalliki Vandanam Scheme, a flagship initiative under the Telugu Desam Party (TDP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s “Super Six” election promises, has emerged as a shining example of meticulous planning and execution.
Launched on 12 June, the scheme aims to empower mothers to accord priority to their children’s education over child labour by providing financial assistance of ₹15,000 per annum per child enrolled in Classes 1 to 12. Of this amount, ₹13,000 is credited directly to the mother’s bank account via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), with ₹2,000 allocated for school infrastructure development.
The state government disbursed ₹8,745 crore to the accounts of 67.27 lakh eligible mothers, surpassing the previous YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government’s Amma Vodi scheme by ₹3,205 crore. The scheme benefits a diverse group, including 30 lakh Backward Classes (BCs), 12 lakh Scheduled Castes (SCs), 4.26 lakh Scheduled Tribes (STs), 66,000 minorities, and 8.5 lakh Economically Backward Classes (EBCs).
With a remarkable 98 percent success rate, only 2% of beneficiaries missed payments due to inactive bank accounts. The School Education Department is proactively addressing this by sending SMS notifications to such mothers, urging them to activate their accounts to receive funds promptly.
Spearheaded by Human Resources Minister Nara Lokesh, the scheme’s implementation is near-foolproof, minimising misuse and ensuring seamless delivery. Key features include:
Administration: Managed by the School Education Department with support from the Gram/Ward Sachivalayam (GSWS) Department, beneficiary lists are published transparently at Grama/Ward Secretariats, with grievances addressed via online dashboards.
Aadhaar Authentication: Mandatory Aadhaar-linked bank accounts, verified by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), ensure secure DBT. For those without Aadhaar, enrollment IDs, or alternative documents (e.g., ration cards, bank passbooks) are accepted, with strict legal action against fraudulent claims.
Mana Mitra WhatsApp Governance: Launched on January 30, 2025, this innovative platform (accessible via 9552300009) supports Thalliki Vandanam by allowing mothers to apply, check payment status, obtain required documents (e.g., income certificates), and file grievances under the “Educational Services” category. This reduces the need for physical visits to Grama/Ward Sachivalayams, enhancing accessibility.
The scheme targets economically disadvantaged families with stringent eligibility conditions:
Residency: Both the mother/guardian and the child must be permanent residents of Andhra Pradesh.
Education: Children must be enrolled in Classes 1–12 in recognised government, aided, or unaided schools/junior colleges. Students in ITI, Polytechnic, or IIIT (RGUKT) courses are ineligible, but orphans and street children enrolled via voluntary organisations qualify.
Attendance: A minimum of 75% school attendance is required, with benefits terminated for non-compliance or discontinuation of studies.
Monthly family income: Less than ₹10,000 (rural) or less than ₹12,000 (urban).
Possession of a valid rice card
Land ownership: Less than three acres of wetland, less than 10 acres of dry land, or less than 10 acres combined.
Electricity consumption: Less than 300 units/month (12-month average).
No four-wheeler ownership (except tractors/taxis).
No municipal property exceeding 1,000 sq. ft.
No government employees or pensioners in the family (except sanitary workers).
Household database: Beneficiaries must be listed in Andhra Pradesh’s household database, with GSWS conducting field verification if needed.
The scheme’s robust safeguards, including Aadhaar verification and transparent grievance redressal, have made it a benchmark for social welfare programmes, earning widespread praise for its efficiency and inclusivity.
In stark contrast, the arrest of Kommineni Srinivasa Rao, a 70-year-old senior journalist and an anchor at YSRCP-owned Sakshi TV, has drawn criticism for the ruling party’s apparent political motives, culminating in a Supreme Court rebuke that exposed the state’s overreach.
On 6 June, Sakshi TV aired a live debate, “KSR Live Show”, moderated by Rao, during which political analyst VVR Krishnam Raju made derogatory remarks, calling Amaravati a “capital of prostitutes” instead of a “capital of goddesses,” as described by Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu.
The comments, deemed offensive to women farmers who donated land for Amaravati’s development, sparked outrage from women’s groups, Dalit organisations, and political leaders, including Naidu, Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, and Andhra Pradesh Women’s Commission Chairperson Rayapati Sailaja, who demanded an apology and strict action.
Following a complaint by Kambampati Sireesha, a leader of the Amaravati Capital Farmers’ Dalit Joint Action Council, a case was registered at Thullur Police Station in Guntur district on 9 June. Rao was arrested from his Journalists’ Colony residence in Hyderabad and taken to Guntur. He was produced before the Mangalagiri Court on 10 June and remanded in 14 days’ judicial custody. Krishnam Raju was arrested on 11 June in Vizianagaram district and similarly remanded.
Rao faced charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
Section 79 (defamation via false propaganda)
Section 196(1) (promoting enmity between groups)
Section 353(2) (obstructing a public servant)
Section 299 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
Section 356(2) (outraging the modesty of a woman)
Section 61(1) (incitement or unlawful assembly)
Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (caste-based defamation)
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (electronic transmission of obscene content)
The Mangalagiri Court, however, criticised the police for misusing the sections under the SC/ST Atrocities Act against Rao, and ordered their removal, citing insufficient grounds. Memos were issued against Guntur SP and Thullur DSP for misuse of legal provisions.
On 13 June, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan heard Rao’s writ petition (W.P.(Crl.) No. 244/2025) seeking bail. The state, represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, whose high fees raised concerns about taxpayer funds, argued that Rao abetted Raju’s remarks by laughing and failing to condemn them, making him complicit in the offense.
Rao’s counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, countered that Rao did not make the remarks and that they were Raju’s, and his role as a moderator did not imply liability. He argued that the arrest violated Rao’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and journalistic rights. He added that Rao had apologised during the debate, and urged restraint, though he was seen laughing, which was not a criminal act.
The Supreme Court granted Rao bail, dismissing the state’s arguments. Justice Manmohan remarked, “When someone makes an outrageous statement, we laugh it off. They can’t be termed co-conspirators.” Justice Mishra added, “Smiling isn’t a crime.” Rao was released with conditions to avoid derogatory statements on his show, marking a significant setback for the state government.
Critics say that the Thalliki Vandanam Scheme has bolstered the TDP-led government’s reputation for efficient welfare delivery, setting a high standard for social programmes. However, the shabby handling of the journalists’ case, perceived as a politically motivated move against YSRCP-related media, has drawn criticism for undermining press freedom and misusing legal provisions.
They added that the Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke serves as a reminder that governance must balance accountability with restraint, even in the face of public outrage. As Andhra Pradesh navigates these contrasting narratives, the success of Thalliki Vandanam stands as a beacon of effective governance, while Rao’s case underscores the pitfalls of overzealous legal action.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
