Allahabad HC orders status quo on merger of schools in Sitapur till Aug 21
The high court passed the order only for Sitapur district after it noticed certain glaring discrepancies with respect to merger of schools there during hearing of the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order on two petitions—one by 5 children and the other by 17 children from Sitapur district through their parents.
The petitioners had sought a stay on the July 7 order of the single judge bench of the high court which dismissed the petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for merger of primary schools run by the basic education department of the state government.
'We make it clear that at this point of time the grant of interim order has nothing to do with the merit of the policy and its implementation as such,' the court said. Senior advocate LP Mishra and advocate Gaurav Mehrotra argued on behalf of the petitioners, whereas additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh argued on behalf of the state government.
During the hearing, irregularities came to the fore in some documents of merger presented by the state government. They came to light when reference to the documents produced before the single judge bench (which dismissed the petitions against merger on July 7) was made. The court noticed certain discrepancies and pointed them out to the additional advocate general.
In view of this, the court ordered to maintain the status quo on the merger process of primary schools in Sitapur district. Mishra argued that the state government's order to merge schools violates the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act for children aged 6-14. He also raised concerns that the merger would create problems for young children as they would have to travel long distances to attend school.
The government counsel apprised the court of such primary schools those have zero students. They also informed the court about primary schools where the strength of students was fewer than 15. Defending the merger of primary schools, the government counsel pointed out that it was in the larger interest of students. They said there will be more social activity and scope for development for a student who is relocated from a school having a few students to a school having 300 students.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Justice Varma's plea against in-house inquiry, CJI's recommendation
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality and findings of an in-house judicial inquiry that affirmed 'strong inferential evidence' of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi this year. Justice Yashwant Varma. (PTI) Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih affirmed the legality and constitutional validity of the inquiry mechanism, holding that it did not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. 'With these observations, we have dismissed the petition,' Justice Datta said in court. The ruling came days after the court had reserved its verdict, having heard extensive arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi for Justice Varma. In its ruling, the apex court framed six legal and constitutional questions and answered all against Justice Varma. While noting that his conduct 'did not inspire confidence,' the bench said, even as it proceeded to examine the matter due to the important legal issues raised. The court held that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges. The bench ruled that the process followed did not infringe on Justice Varma's constitutional or fundamental rights. Except for the release of a video showing the charred cash, which the court noted did not impact the outcome, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee 'scrupulously' followed the laid-down procedure. The court rejected the argument that the CJI's May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal was unconstitutional or made without affording him a hearing. 'The in-house procedure does not contemplate a hearing before the CJI or the collegium,' the bench said. The court also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court. Earlier, while reserving its verdict on July 30, the court defended the role of the CJI in safeguarding institutional integrity, saying the top judge of the country is 'not a mere post office' but a constitutional functionary empowered to take proactive measures. It rejected Justice Varma's contention that the in-house committee's recommendation for removal overstepped its constitutional mandate. 'The recommendation for removal has to go. It is more than persuasive. When the CJI recommends removal, it virtually amounts to a death knell for a judge,' Sibal argued. But the court had then said the ultimate decision rests with Parliament, which is not bound by the CJI's recommendation. The bench, during the July 30 hearing, also pointed out that the Judges' Protection Act allows for non-punitive steps to be taken by judicial authorities in the interest of the institution, adding that the term 'otherwise' in the law gave the court and the CJI a broad mandate to preserve judicial integrity. Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after. The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of 'strong inferential evidence' linking Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, triggering Varma's legal challenge. While Justice Varma's legal team argued that principles of natural justice were violated, including denial of cross-examination and personal hearing before the CJI, the court maintained that the in-house mechanism is limited in scope and not a full-fledged trial, with the final decision on removal resting with Parliament. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. Earlier, the three-member in-house panel, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, concluded its findings on May 3. Though it found no direct evidence linking Justice Varma to the charred currency, the report stated that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. Varma has denied all wrongdoing, terming the case a conspiracy, and in a letter to CJI Khanna on May 6, rejected the latter's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
WBJEE 2025 results deferred yet again following Calcutta HC contempt order
The declaration of the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (WBJEE) 2025 results has once again hit a legal roadblock, with the Calcutta High Court ordering an immediate halt to the release of the results just hours before the scheduled announcement. This latest judicial intervention has sent shockwaves across the academic community, particularly among thousands of engineering and pharmacy aspirants waiting in anticipation for their ranks. WBJEE 2025: Court bars result release pending review Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court, in a sharply worded order, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the WBJEE Board on Wednesday. The decision came after candidates alleged that the board had violated the court's May 21 directive, linked to ongoing concerns about admission irregularities and merit list preparation. As a consequence, the High Court has stayed the declaration of WBJEE 2025 results, as well as all subsequent counselling and admission processes, until a division bench delivers a verdict on the board's appeal. WBJEE 2025 results: From Supreme Court relief to high court setback The order comes just weeks after the Supreme Court of India had stayed an earlier High Court judgment that barred the WBJEEB from using the state's revised OBC list for this year's counselling. That Supreme Court ruling had cleared the way for the results to be declared, and WBJEEB had confirmed that the results would go live on August 7, 2025. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Donating Sperm May Boost Your Income SpellRock Undo However, Wednesday's dramatic turn has rendered that plan null and void. Aspirants left adrift amid legal tug-of-war Students and parents are once again caught in a state of confusion and anxiety, as the uncertainty surrounding the WBJEE result intensifies. The board had already released provisional answer keys and completed evaluation—meaning the results were ready for publication before the court order halted the process. The delay in admissions now threatens to clash with other national-level counselling schedules, including JoSAA and private university intakes, complicating matters further for candidates aiming at multiple options. Next steps: Awaiting division bench decision With the High Court making it explicitly clear that no further steps may be taken by the board, the focus now shifts to the division bench hearing, which will determine the immediate fate of the WBJEE 2025 admission cycle. Until then, the West Bengal 2025 results remain frozen, and over one lakh candidates are left in an academic limbo—awaiting justice and clarity in a season already burdened by institutional delays and judicial overhang. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
