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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more