SC asks MP Sanjay Singh to move Allahabad HC against closure of 105 UP schools
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said that since Singh was seeking enforcement of rights under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), the proper course would be to approach the jurisdictional high court under Article 226 of the Constitution rather than invoking the Supreme Court's powers directly under Article 32.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Singh, argued: 'These children can no longer go to the school. And most of them are poor.' The bench asked: 'Are you not trying to enforce rights under the Right to Education Act? You cannot then camouflage this as an Article 32 petition [for enforcement of fundamental rights]. It is a local problem. It is a problem of UP [Uttar Pradesh], and it has not spilled over to some other states. Let the high court deal with the matter.'
Sibal responded that the high court had already dismissed one such petition. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing Uttar Pradesh, informed the bench that 'there is an intra-court appeal pending against this order in the Allahabad high court.'
Reiterating its stance, the bench said: 'If it is a statutory right, then it cannot be camouflaged as a writ petition under Article 32. There is a three-judge bench decision on this.'
Following the exchange, Sibal sought permission to withdraw the plea, with liberty to approach the high court. He requested that the high court be asked to hear the matter expeditiously, given that the issue involved the education of thousands of children.
The bench allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to move the high court with such a request.
Singh's petition challenged the Uttar Pradesh government's June 16 order directing that primary schools with zero or low enrolment be 'paired' with other nearby schools. A subsequent list issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow, on June 24 identified 105 schools for pairing, effectively rendering them non-operational or merged with distant institutions.
Filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat, the plea contended that this compelled children to travel longer distances, often without transport assistance, infrastructure, or prior notice, thereby violating their fundamental right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A, as enforced by the RTE Act and the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011.
The Uttar Pradesh government has defended the move as part of policy restructuring and alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, arguing that sustaining schools with negligible student strength was inefficient. Singh said that once established, schools cannot be closed or merged through executive instructions without legislative authority, and warned that the closures would hit children from marginalised backgrounds the hardest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Centre has decided to defile the Constitution by turning India into a dictatorship under PM, alleges Stalin
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on Wednesday strongly objected to The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament, which seeks to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of States and Union Territories who are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. He said the BJP government at the Centre has decided to defile the Constitution and its democratic foundations by turning India into a dictatorship under the Prime Minister. 'The 130th Constitutional Amendment is not reform. This is a black day and this is a black Bill. This is how dictatorships begin: steal votes, silence rivals and crush States. I strongly condemn this Bill, which strikes at the very root of democracy, and I call upon all the democratic forces to unite against this attempt to turn India into a dictatorship,' Mr. Stalin said in a post on X. 'After the exposé of vote theft, the very mandate on which the Union BJP government was formed is in serious question. Its legitimacy is doubtful. Having stolen the mandate of the people through fraud, the BJP is now desperate to distract public attention from this exposé. To do that, they have brought in the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill,' Mr. Stalin alleged. 'The plan of this Bill is clear. It allows the BJP to foist false cases against political opponents in power across States and remove them by misusing provisions that treat even a 30-day arrest as a ground for removal of an elected leader, without any conviction or trial. This unconstitutional amendment will certainly be struck down by the courts because guilt is decided only after trial, not by the mere registration of a case,' the Chief Minister said. 'This is a sinister attempt to intimidate regional parties in the NDA, whose leaders are CMs or Ministers in various States — 'stick with us or else…' The first move of any emerging dictator is to give himself the power to arrest and remove rivals from office. That is exactly what this Bill seeks to do,' Mr. Stalin added.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Parliamentary panel urges law for OBC, SC, ST quotas in private universities
New Delhi: A Parliamentary panel on Wednesday flagged the 'considerably low' enrolment of Other Backward Classes (OBC) students and the 'abysmally low' presence of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students in India's three private universities with Institution of Eminence (IoE) status and recommended a law making reservations mandatory in private higher educational institutions—27% for OBCs, 15% for SCs, and 7.5% for STs—in line with government norms. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (Sansad TV/ANI Video Grab) The central government has granted IoE status to 20 institutions (10 public and 10 private), thereby giving them special recognition, greater autonomy, and financial support to achieve world-class standards. The Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report on the necessity for reservations for OBC, SC, and ST students in private higher educational institutions, reviewed the latest students' strengths from O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat; Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida; and Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani. Citing various Supreme Court's orders, the Parliamentary standing committee on education, women, children, youth and sports, headed by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh in its report submitted to Parliament said that reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs in private educational institutions is 'constitutionally permissible.' To introduce reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private higher education institutions, the Committee asked the government to follow the Right to Education (RTE) Act's 25% quota in private schools model – where fees are reimbursed by the government. Private educational institutions are currently not bound by law to implement reservation policies, as no statute mandates them. The panel called the absence of reservations in private educational institutions an 'impediment to attaining social justice in this country.' 'The committee, therefore, recommends that Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution be implemented in full across the country through legislation by parliament. The committee recommends that 27%, 15% and 7.5% seats should be reserved for OBCs, SCs, and STs respectively in private higher educational institutions,' added the report. Article 15(5) of the Constitution, inserted through the 93rd Constitutional amendment in 2006, allows the government to mandate reservations for SC, ST, and OBC students in private educational institutions. In May 2014, in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the entirety of Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution. Citing All-India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22 data, which lists 517 private universities, 240 central institutions and 445 state institutions, the panel noted that public institutions alone cannot meet demand, making private HEIs crucial for accommodating students from all sections of society. Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh in a statement said it is 'no longer possible to ignore' the demand of SC, ST and OBC communities for reservations in private higher education. Stating that the panel report has given 'renewed impetus' to the demand which was also mentioned in the party's 2024 'Nyay Patra' manifesto, he said, 'The ball is now in the Modi government's court.'
