No students, no classes, but salaries paid: HC takes suo motu action
This issue, highlighted in a newspaper under the caption 'No students in 300 Maha colleges, but staff pocket crores in salaries,' has prompted the court to intervene.
Justices Nitin W Sambre and Sachin S Deshmukh, presiding over the case, expressed grave concern over the situation. The court observed that this revelation not only signifies a significant wastage of public money but also points to severe mismanagement of the educational institutions.
The court noted that if institutions fail to attract sufficient students, existing statutes provide mechanisms to address such situations. Specifically, the staff of such institutions can be dealt with in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, the Secondary School Code, and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
To delve deeper into the matter and ensure accountability, the High Court has called for all the information regarding these colleges and the remedial measures taken by the state government.
The court has appointed Advocate Rahul Ghuge as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings. Adv Ghuge has been requested to frame the appropriate petition within two weeks. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on August 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes
New Delhi, Aug 8 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising Allahabad High Court judge Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, making it clear that its intention was not embarrass or cast aspersions on him. On August 4, A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law. 'We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic)," the top court order said. The bench on Friday said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained. 'We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution," the bench said. The bench clarified it was not its intention to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. 'We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution," the top court said. The bench explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice B R Gavai to reconsider the matter. 'We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations… In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," the bench said. The top court further noted high courts were not 'separate islands" that could be disassociated from this institution. Acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter. 'We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective step," the order added. The apex court further hoped not to come across such 'perverse and unjust" order from any high court. 'The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the country," the bench said. The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work 'efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath". On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he 'erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court's unprecedented order. The letter was written by Justice Arindam Sinha and seven judges signed the letter. In its order, the top court made strong observations against Justice Kumar's judicial reasoning and further directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster. It further directed for him to be assigned a division bench alongside a senior judge until his retirement. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the high court judge's order 'erroneous", the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the 'worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In the case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. top videos View all The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 08, 2025, 15:30 IST News agency-feeds Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising Allahabad High Court judge Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, making it clear that its intention was not embarrass or cast aspersions on him. Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes On August 4, A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law. "We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court ," the top court order said. The bench on Friday said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained. "We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution," the bench said. The bench clarified it was not its intention to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. "We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution," the top court said. The bench explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice B R Gavai to reconsider the matter. "We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations... In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," the bench said. The top court further noted high courts were not "separate islands" that could be disassociated from this institution. Acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter. "We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective step," the order added. The apex court further hoped not to come across such "perverse and unjust" order from any high court. "The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the country," the bench said. The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work "efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath". On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court's unprecedented order. The letter was written by Justice Arindam Sinha and seven judges signed the letter. In its order, the top court made strong observations against Justice Kumar's judicial reasoning and further directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster. It further directed for him to be assigned a division bench alongside a senior judge until his retirement. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the high court judge's order "erroneous", the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In the case, the complainant delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth ₹52.34 lakh of which an amount of ₹47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court proposes interim committee to manage Bankey Bihari temple
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) proposed to modify its May 15 judgment which permitted the Uttar Pradesh government to use funds from the Shri Bankey Bihari Temple at Vrindavan for acquiring five acres of land around the temple for corridor development. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally addressed the lawyers in the case that the May 15 verdict would be modified to the extent that it would not affect the rights of the stakeholders in the temple. Justice Kant's remarks came after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the ordinance cannot be allowed to continue in its present form. On August 4, the apex court had come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Government for the 'tearing hurry' in which it had promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, to take over the management of the temple. The apex court had also criticised the manner in which the State secured directions from the Supreme Court through a May 15 judgment to use temple funds for the corridor development project without hearing the temple's traditional management or affected parties. The Bench said it would, in its proposed judgment, further give the petitioners liberty to challenge the ordinance before the Allahabad High Court. The court said it did not want to make any comments on the merits of the ordinance. 'We will grant you liberty to challenge the ordinance before the High Court. The constitution of the committee as per the ordinance will be kept in abeyance so that the ordinance is not given effect till the matter is decided by the High Court,' Justice Kant said orally. The court told the parties that it would also keep in abeyance a provision mandating the constitution of a committee or trust to manage the temple. Instead, Justice Kant said an interim committee headed by a retired High Court judge and comprising local officials, like the District Collector, and Goswamis would be formed to take care of the development of the temple and the law and order situation around its premises. The court said it did not want a repeat of the 2022 tragedy when a stampede occurred at the temple during Janmashtami celebrations. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said the State government was moving to ratify the ordinance in the Assembly. The court said the stay would not affect the government's action. The Bench, in an order, stayed pending proceedings in the High Court on writ petitions filed against the ordinance. The apex court also stayed a July 21 order of a Single Judge of the High Court in which certain observations were made about the ordinance. In the previous hearing, Mr. Nataraj had said the government was keen to develop the temple by providing better facilities to worshippers like in the cases of Ayodhya and Kashi. 'The temple is historic. About 20,000 to 30,000 people come to worship at the temple every day. Weekends see two to three lakh devotees. There is a requirement for better facilities, better administration. There has been mismanagement of funds,' Mr. Nataraj had submitted. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the current temple management, had objected to the submission of 'mismanagement of funds'. 'This is the land of Lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let's find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue,' Justice Kant had orally observed in an earlier hearing. eom
