Delhi HC mulls striking down DPS Dwarka's order to expel 32 students for non-payment of fees
Justice Sachin Datta was hearing an application moved by the parents of the 32 students who were expelled by the school earlier this week.
DPS Dwarka argued before the court that there was no court directive that said that the students had to be taken on the rolls without paying fees. The school also told the court that it had 'accumulated a loss of Rs 49 crore last year'.
However, Justice Datta inquired if the school had issued a show-cause notice as stipulated under Section 35(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The section states that even if a student's name is to be struck off for any reason, the school must provide the student's parent or guardian a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action.
While DPS Dwarka claimed that it had issued a show-cause notice, the petitioner parents denied this.
Justice Datta, addressing DPS Dwarka, orally remarked, 'You produce the notices…show me a notice where you informed the students that if you don't pay the fees, you will be off the rolls on 13th May…I think I will stay this order immediately…This order (by the school expelling the students) has to go for non-compliance with Rule 35 (4).'
The court, however, deferred the matter for further hearing and for orders on May 19.
After the students were expelled, the Delhi government's Directorate of Education (DoE) had on Thursday evening issued an order directing the management at DPS Dwarka to immediately withdraw the order. It also directed the school to add the names of the 32 students or any other students who were rusticated back on the school rolls.
Meanwhile, in another petition by parents of 102 students of DPS Dwarka seeking directions to the Delhi government's DOE to examine the non-compliance of administrative orders by DOE as well as judicial orders by the school, Justice Vikas Mahajan on Friday directed that DPS Dwarka be added as a party in the petition. Additionally, the court also said it will pass necessary orders later in the day, following a request from the petitioners to ensure their wards' education continues uninterrupted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SHRC order awarding Rs 1 lakh relief to former MLA upheld in Tamil Nadu
CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court on Monday upheld a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) order directing a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and two sub-inspectors to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to former CPM MLA P Dillibabu for allegedly assaulting him during protests against the Chennai-Salem eight-lane expressway in 2018. The bench of justices M Sundar and Hemant Chandangoudar dismissed a petition filed by DSP S Sundaramoorthy challenging the SHRC's order dated March 22, 2022. Advocate Karl Marx appeared for Dillibabu, who is a two-term MLA from Harur and president of the Tamil Nadu Tribals Association. The SHRC had found that Sundaramoorthy and two sub-inspectors committing violation of human rights while forcefully securing Dillibabu from a hotel at Chengam on June 26, 2018 and detaining him at Pudupalayam station before releasing him that evening. Based on the evidence he had produced, the commission ordered the state government to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to Dillibabu and recover Rs 50,000 from Sundaramoorthy, and Rs 25,000 each from SIs Muthukumarasamy and Rajasekar.
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC refuses to interfere with Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case
New Delhi: TheSupreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in the 2001 criminal defamation case filed against her by V.K. Saxena -- the now Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar, challenging a Delhi High Court order that had maintained her conviction in the matter. However, in a bit of relief to Patkar, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench set aside the penalty imposed and directed that the supervision order would not be enforced. Earlier, on July 29, the Delhi High Court upheld Medha Patkar's conviction, rejecting her revision plea against a Saket court order that had dismissed her criminal appeal. A single-judge Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Patkar failed to point out any procedural defect that would amount to a miscarriage of justice in the case, noting that her conviction was based on due consideration of the evidence and applicable law. However, Justice Shalinder Kaur had modified the probation condition requiring her to appear before the trial court every three months, permitting her to appear virtually or be represented by an advocate. In 2001, Saxena filed two defamation suits against Patkar -- one over allegedly derogatory remarks made during a television interview, and the other concerning a press statement. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and lawyers Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar and Somya appeared for the respondent V.K. Saxena in the case. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate, presented Medha Patkar's case in the court. The legal tussle arose from an earlier suit filed by Patkar in 2000, accusing Saxena of publishing defamatory advertisements targeting her and the NBA. In July last year, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma sentenced Patkar to five months in jail and ordered her to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to Saxena. On appeal, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh of the Saket Court upheld Patkar's conviction but ordered her to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to prior deposit of a compensation amount of Rs one lakh, which will be released in favour of the complainant (Saxena). It had opined that an insensitive approach towards others' reputation and abuse of the right to free speech must be met with criminal sanction, adding that Patkar, being herself a person of repute, must know the value of one's reputation and how defamation can result in loss of face and public esteem of the victim.
New Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Labourer trampled to death by wild elephant in O-Valley estate in TN
NILGIRIS: A 62-year-old man was trampled to death by a wild elephant at New Hope near O-Valley forest range in Gudalur forest division on Monday morning. The deceased was K Mani, a labourer at an estate in New Hope. He was attacked while heading to switch on the water pump motor in the estate at 9.45am. He was accompanied by another labourer, Durai. While Durai managed to escape, Mani was killed on the spot by the animal. Mani's relatives and residents of New Hope staged a protest with the body on the Gudalur road demanding the forest department to prevent the intrusion of wild elephants into human habitations. They prevented the police from taking the body to the Gudalur Government Hospital for postmortem. Sources in the forest department said they had alerted about the movement of the elephant via WhatsApp. Unfortunately, the deceased failed to notice the elephant behind the bushes in the plantation. Sources in O-Valley forest range said the area was free of wild elephant attacks in the last one year owing to efforts in diverting the animals back to the forest. The body was taken for postmortem at 2.30pm after protesters were assured by the authorities that the elephant would be driven back into the forest. Mani's body was later handed over to his family and an initial compensation of Rs 50,000 was given to his wife by the forest department staff.
