Skip to main content

SC - Right of Education explained

Supreme Court: The constitutional bench comprising of R.M. Lodha, CJ and A. K. Patnaik, S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and Fakkir Kalifulla, JJ in reference to the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 102, held that insertion of Article 21A and Article 15(5) of the Constitution by the Eighty-Sixth (2002) and Ninety-Third (2005) Amendment, respectively, does not alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution and is constitutionally valid in particular reference to private-unaided schools. The Court emphasized upon the failure of Article 15 in achieving the goal of 'equal treatment without discrimination by State' to hold Article 15(5) of the Constitution as a necessary addition and that Article 21A was inserted to give effect to the Directive Principle of State regarding education in Article 45 of the Constitution. The Court then elucidated that the right of private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) was not destroyed by admissions, free-ships or scholarships to educationally and socially backward classes of citizens as well as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in actuality are necessary to achieve the constitutional goals of equality of opportunity and social justice set out in the Preamble of the Constitution. [Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India; Writ Petition © No. 416 of 2012; Decided on May 06, 2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more