Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A fundamental right, especially when it unequivocally accrues in favour of a citizen, cannot be tossed even on the basis of the procedural grounds or technicalities.”
Asking the student to continue studying in the MCD school would be tantamount to an onslaught on his constitutional rights and the Constitutional Court would be failing in its duty to secure the fundamental rights of the young citizen.
By denying the opportunity for continuous education in a school run by the same society, a pitiable situation frequently arises where, due to the two different identification numbers assigned by the DoE to the school’s junior and senior wings, financial segregation of students is indirectly perpetuated.
“Payment of tuition fees is the duty of the parents towards the schools. Any default in the same ought to be recovered from the parents by the school concerned in the manner known to law. Instead, making entries of non-payment of fees on TC in the child’s name is humiliation for the child. ”
The instant petition was filed at the verge of commencement of the admission process in the schools in the State and seems to be a result of pre-empting the whole issue.
The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.
“Admitting EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry level class is the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”
Gauhati High Court was deliberating over a PIL filed to highlight ineffective implementation of State govt.’s policies framed as per the mandate in Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act, 2009
Kerala High Court: A. Muhamed Mustaque, J., dismissed a petition filed by a private unaided school, imparting elementary education, challenging the State’s
Chhattisgarh High Court: The Court recently addressed a writ petition in which petitioners claimed themselves to be minority educational institutions (belonging to