HC reserves verdict on pleas against merger of schools
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on two separate petitions filed by Krishna Kumari and others.
The petitioners have demanded the cancellation of the state govt's order of June 16 regarding the merger.
The petitioners' counsel L P Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra had stressed that the state govt's action was in violation of the right to education given to children between 6 and 14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution because it would deprive them of the right to education in their neighbourhood . It was said that if the number of students in a school is low, the govt should try to improve the level of the school so that more children get enrolled.
It was said that instead of doing this, the state govt found an easier way to close those schools by merger or some other means. It was argued that the Constitution of India expects the govt to work like a welfare state in which the welfare of the people should be kept in mind more than economic gain and loss.
On the other hand, additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Singh as well as senior advocate Sandeep Dixit, appearing on behalf of director of basic education, argued that the govt has taken the decision as per the rules and there is no flaw and illegality in it.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Unbelievable: Calculator Shows The Value Of Your House Instantly (Take a Look)
Home Value Calculator
Search Now
Undo
by Taboola
by Taboola
It was said that there are many schools which do not have even a single student. It was also argued that the govt has not done any merger, but only schools have been paired.
It was also said that the primary schools which have been paired are not being closed.
In course of hearing, Kudesia repeatedly demanded from the court to ban the reporting of this case. It was said that the entire proceedings of this case are being reported, which is tarnishing the image of govt lawyers. However, Justice Bhatia outrightly rejected this demand and said that the govt, if it wants, may frame law but the court would not do this.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
32 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Future of Queer Rights in India and Why the Judiciary Must Play Catalyst
This is the full text of the speech delivered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Saturday, July 12, at the launch of a report and recommendations by the Keshav Suri Foundation and the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy titled 'Queering the Law: Beyond Supriyo' at The Lalit, Delhi. The document lists legal and policy solutions to help eliminate systemic discrimination, ensure recognition of queer relationships and families, and promote equal access to healthcare, safety education, and employment. The recommendations are based on legal research and community consultations across Delhi, Mumbai and Jaipur. § The Future of Queer Rights in India A very good evening to all gathered today! Mr Keshav Suri, Founder of the Keshav Suri Foundation (KSF), Dr. Jyotsna Suri, Chairperson and Managing Director, The Lalit Suri Hospitality Group, Senior Advocates Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Menaka Guruswamy and Ms. Arundhati Katju, Dr. Arghya Sengupta and other members from the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and other esteemed panellists. At the outset I extend my congratulations to the entire Vidhi team in coming out with the public policy brief on ' Queering the Law: Beyond Suprio' assiduously prepared jointly by Vidhi and Keshav Suri Foundation (KSF). Vidhi, of course, has been doing commendable work across topical issues and its detailed recommendations are invariably well received and acknowledged. The Future of Queer Rights, assumes even more significance, not only because of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Supriyo, but also because it really is an issue that must be discussed with legislative reforms at the heart of such discussion coupled with a need for advocating change in societal perception. As I had opined in Supriyo, our Constitution contemplates a holistic understanding of equality, which applies to all spheres of life. The practice of equality necessitates acceptance and protection of individual choices. This endeavour not only requires judicial interpretation of existing statutes but also an attempt on the part of the legislature to consolidate and make necessary amendments to laws that remain archaic and rooted in a biased assignment of rights. The future of Queer Rights in India, as the Supreme Court had opined in Supriyo requires action in the realm of the legislature and the executive with a co-ordinated effort across various ministries and department. This is so because redressal is to take place across various aspects. Amendment to only civil laws relating to marriage, parenthood and inheritance and making them more inclusive would in my view be only the first step albeit significant. What is required perhaps is also a legislation on civil union. Vidhi, last year, had published what I believe to be a more contemporary rendition of a comprehensive Family Code. This could definitely form the basis of a framework to aid public deliberations on family laws in India. Cue may also be taken by the legislature while framing laws relating to civil union from those already enacted in foreign jurisdictions. For instance, the UK Civil Partnership Act which defines and provides for registration of civil unions or the Australian Family Law Act which states that two persons are in a relationship, if they are not married, not related to each other by family but have been in a relation with each other on a domestic basis. Vidhi's recommendations to the Committee constituted following the decision in Supriyo extensively cover these facets. Protection must also be afforded to such unions which are not ultimately registered but a relationship exists between two persons which could characterised as a civil union. Yet another hurdle to be crossed and surely an important consideration for any couple, would be parent-child relations and the law on this subject. Presently, parent-child relations are determined under an array of statutes – CARA Regulations for adoptions, Guardianship and Wards Act, Juvenile Justice Act, Surrogacy Act. Unfortunately, these legislations deem couples to mean only heterosexual couples. Reformation, amendment or introduction of new legislation is warranted here too. Gender-based discrimination and even bias against single parents must be written out of the statutes. In fact, in Supriyo, the minority view had noted that CARA regulations to the extent that unmarried couples could not adopt a child would disproportionately effect non-heterosexual couples since the State had not conferred legal recognition to the union of queer couples. Both the minority and majority, however, recognised that this area of the law required state intervention. A closely connected aspect would also be whether extant provisions which do not accord legitimacy to children of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples which, of course, would include non-heterosexual couples. There is a need for reworking this statutory scheme and move in-step with societal reality of the 21st century. An almost existential difficulty faced by LGBTQIA persons is access to goods, financial services and access to public infrastructure. In this regard, in my opinion in Supriyo, I had underscored the need for an umbrella anti-discrimination law, noting that: "There are several laws that have an anti-discrimination aspect to them. However, they are fragmented and may fail to capture the multitudinous forms of discrimination. Another compelling reason for a law that places a horizontal duty of anti-discrimination is provided by the spirit of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination by both the State and private actors." Furthermore, while anti-discrimination law do exist, they require courts to be: "...'sentinel on the qui vive', the only method to enforce this Constitutional right under Article 15 would be through its writ jurisdiction. There are significant challenges for marginalized communities to access this remedy. Therefore, the proliferation of remedies through an anti-discrimination statute can be a fitting solution. Such legislation would also be in furtherance of the positive duty of the State to secure social order and to promote justice and social welfare under Article 38 of the Constitution." Anti-discrimination law is ever more crucial in today's age where access to capital is sine qua non for say starting a business, buying a house or even otherwise bridging personal needs is wholly dependent on factors such as ease of availing loans or finances, opening bank accounts. Undoubtedly, there are barriers to access for LGBTQIA persons to even something as routine as opening a bank account which requires one to carry a document which conforms to gender identity. There is also a more deep-rooted societal bias, which compound inaccessibility to the financial system which is normally available to cis-gender or heteronormative individuals. This is naturally a significant handicap to the LGBTQIA community. On the whole, In my view, the future beckons a sanguine and more inclusive reality which requires a more concerted effort not only on the part of the judiciary and legislature but also the more pressing and urgent need for societal reformation. Dishearteningly, there still persists a stigma and sense of rejection for LGBTQIA persons, in particular, non-binary and transgender individuals. There is also, a degree of legislative inertia on the rights and entitlements of queer persons which risks prolonging the legal limbo for same-sex couples seeking marriage, adoption, or inheritance rights. A conservative attitude still persists across a large populace of the country which hinders acceptance. The Supriyo judgment is a nuanced milestone in India's queer rights journey. It affirms cohabitation and non-discrimination rights for LGBTQ individuals but defers to parliamentary wisdom. The minority's push for civil unions offers a potential middle ground, while the court's directives for a government committee signal incremental progress a chasm is required to be crossed which would only be successful through tempered judicial intervention, legislative progress and most importantly growing societal awareness. I believe, we are on a path of progressive recognition of rights of LGBTQIA persons. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India recognized transgender individuals' right to self-identify their gender. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 codifies identification of gender but has several lacunae to be filled by the legislature. Societal perception plays a key role. A 2019 Pew survey found 37% of Indians supported homosexuality, up from 15% in 2013. Urban areas and younger generations show greater openness, but rural and conservative communities often remain hostile. The judiciary must perform the role of a catalyst. India's legislative landscape for LGBTQIA recognition has evolved, but significant gaps persist. The term 'queer' is not defined in Indian law, and asexual individuals are invisible in policy frameworks. In February 2025, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced certain administrative measures for queer couples, including access to ration cards, joint bank accounts, and the right to claim a partner's body in case of death (if no next of kin exists). These measures, prompted by the Supreme Court's Judgement in Supriyo are a step forward but remain limited, as they are not enshrined in statute and do not address comprehensive rights. I truly believe that the future is more promising than what is behind us and in the words of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, 'Hope will never be silent'. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul retired as a Supreme Court judge in 2023.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Two-thirds of the Department of Justice unit defending Trump's policies in court have quit
The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies - such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University - has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters. Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters. The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump's administration. "Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?" by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Saidpur: 1 Trick to Reduce Belly Fat? Home Fitness Hack Shop Now Undo Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress. The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court . A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump's actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures. Live Events "Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President's policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an "unprecedented number of lawsuits" against Trump's agenda. "The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President's agenda to keep Americans safe," the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section. Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump's first term and Joe Biden's administration. HEADING FOR THE EXIT The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers. A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details. In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University. "We've never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs," said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department's Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush. "The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning." The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit. A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves. Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. "They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout," said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration's policies. People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration's attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump's order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday. FACING PRESSURE Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court. Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said. The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump's agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election." Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration's position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases. Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts. Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter. A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Punjab: Use of herbicide to expedite moong, maize harvest sounds alarm bells
BATHINDA: With the harvesting of moong and spring maize at its peak in Punjab, the rampant use of toxic herbicide has come to the fore. Paraquat Dichloride - a herbicide plant killer - is being used massively to quicken the drying time of both crops as farmers are in a hurry to transplant paddy or basmati. Though Paraquat Dichloride is widely used for weeding and grass control, it is being used in the fields in Punjab on moong, also called green gram, and maize. Immediately after the spray on the plants, it starts working, and the plant is ready to be harvested in the next 48-72 hours. In doing so, farmers even overlook the health hazards. The use of Paraquat Dichloride to expedite harvesting when the crop is nearing maturity is being seen as a cause of concern. Paraquat is a highly toxic compound that can cause serious health effects. "The Registration Committee (RC) constituted under Section 5 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in its 361st meeting on Dec 12, 2015, deliberated to review 66 pesticides, including Paraquat Dichloride, and accepted its continued use with caution, improved packaging to prevent misuse, and training for medical personnel to handle poisoning cases. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Further, a sub-committee was constituted to review the toxicity and safety of Paraquat Dichloride," Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan stated in a written reply in Lok Sabha on Dec 3, 2024, when asked about the use of the toxic chemical Paraquat by the farmers. The Centre regulates the manufacture and use of pesticides in the country through the Insecticides Act, 1968, and Insecticides Rules, 1971, and pesticides are allowed for use in the country only after considering data on different parameters such as chemistry, bio-efficacy, toxicity, packaging, and processing to ensure efficacy and safety to human beings, animals, and the environment. The details of doses, crops, precautionary measures, and antidotes are prescribed on labels and leaflets of pesticides. Dr Hargurpartap Singh from the small town of Nihal Singh Wala in Moga district is running a campaign against the use of Paraquat. He deals with acute poisoning and regularly comes across cases of ingesting Paraquat. Normally, farmers keep the chemical in their motor room or homes after use on crops and sometimes even ingest it upon any disturbance on the economic front or familial issues. He came across two cases in the last week, and both died as the intake caused multi-organ failure. In Punjab, both moong and maize are being sold below the minimum support price (MSP) of Rs 8,682 per quintal and Rs 2,225 per quintal, respectively. While moong is fetching Rs 7,000-Rs 7,500 per quintal, maize is being sold at Rs 1,700-Rs 2,000 per quintal, depending upon the quality of the crop Jagraon in Ludhiana district is the biggest market for marketing of moong. Commission agents at Jagraon grain market said the crop fetched Rs 7,000-Rs 7,500.
