Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
GNLU submitted a written response on “India’s legal-policy framework on Safety as an Element of the Right to Education” to Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, United Nations Human Rights Council, for upcoming report to be presented at the 59th session of the Human Rights Council in June 2025.
The University of Mumbai and Siddharth College of Law are at liberty to refuse permission to petitioner from appearing in the examination for failure to satisfy the minimum attendance criteria or any other eligibility criteria.
Madras High Court directed the University to not reject the application of the petitioner on the ground of being a transgender person.
‘The dual-language approach will help in preventing future instances of non-compliance due to language barriers and ensure that the rights and opportunities are accessible to all citizens, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.’
“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. ”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The petitioner’s daughter is a child belonging to DG in the SC category within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“the RTE Act”) and is, therefore, entitled to free, compulsory and elementary education till its completion under Section 12(c) of the RTE Act.
“A playground in a school is a part and parcel of the school. Without a playground, there cannot be a school. The education of the children is not in the classroom alone; it should spread to the playground as well. Playgrounds are the ultimate classroom where children learn through play. The playground is where the children can themselves shine mentally and physically”
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.
“A perusal of syllabus of the Madarsa Board shows that the education provided therein is only of languages and Islam as a religion with a little touch of maths etc. The modern subjects including science are only optional and entire school education can be completed without studying modern subjects.”
The present case reflects a tormenting situation where the opulent class is putting in blood, sweat and tears to reap the benefits of EWS reservation at the expense of the economically marginalized candidates. A calculated attempt at subverting the cherished constitutional vision of education for all is under scrutiny in this case.
Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to undertake an exercise for admission of the children in reputed schools in the vicinity of the homes.
Supreme Court said that B.Ed. is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained teacher.
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” has metamorphosed into “spare the rod and teach the child”, said Karnataka HC while considering a quashment petition by the authorities of Karumbaiah Academy who were alleged to have been responsible for a student’s suicide.
Delhi High Court observed that the citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy.
The High Court was hearing a bunch of petitions highlighting the violation of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 by certain schools.
Coming down furiously over the respondents Karnataka High Court reprimanded them for indulging in red-tapism and being apathetic to the educational needs of the children.
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
Madras High Court found the refusal for admission to child suffering from mild autism spectrum disorder to be distressing and violating the child’s fundamental right to education.
The rights of a child to education have to be balanced with the rights of the school under the DSER, 1973. If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session.