Delhi HC forms expert panel to decide autistic student's school
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered the formation of the committee after the school submitted that her studying alongside other students in the class could compromise their safety and will not be in their best interests.
Kamal Gupta, representing the school, showed a senior psychiatrist's July 17 report which recommended enrolling the girl in a school catering to CWSN.
On the other hand, the girl's mother, represented by advocate Ashok Agarwal, presented another report which stated that the child was fit to study in an integrated school, provided she received support from a shadow teacher.
'To allay the apprehension in the mind of the appellants, we propose constituting a committee of experts, comprising experts, mother of the child, and the school's counsellor. The said committee shall clinically examine the child and give its categorical opinion as to whether the child can be admitted in the appellate school or she has to be given admission in a school meant for CWSN,' the court said in its order and fixed August 19 as the next date of hearing.
The evaluation will be conducted within a week from Tuesday, the court said.
The court was dealing with the school's petition against a July 1 order, directing the administration to re-admit the girl, observing that educational institutions are duty-bound to accommodate CWSN, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Justice Vikas Mahajan had then criticised the school's failure to provide adequate support to the child, observing that its actions amounted to a denial of the child's statutory right to inclusive education. The court said that inclusive education under the Act is not a symbolic ideal, but a legally enforceable right.
The girl was initially admitted to GD Goenka School in 2021. After being diagnosed with mild autism in 2022, her mother requested a shadow teacher or special educator to assist her. The school, however, allegedly failed to provide the necessary support, until the family withdrew her admission in January 2023.
In the 2024-25 session, she was again allotted a seat at GD Goenka under the children with special needs (CWSN) category, but the school refused admission. A subsequent allotment at Maxfort School, Pitampura, was also denied. Her parents then approached the Delhi High Court, seeking enforcement of her right to education.
The school's petition before the division bench presented that the single judge bench misunderstood its genuine inability to admit the girl and erroneously created another seat in a private unaided educational institution without its consent or concurrence. It went on to add that the ruling also brushed aside the safety of other children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Abortions based on ‘presumed' mental health injury: HC seeks Centre opinion on plea challenging law
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the Union government's reply to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a 57-year-old Hisar resident challenging the legal provision that allows abortions based on presumed mental health injury without requiring evaluation by a psychiatrist. Deepak Kumar, the petitioner, has sought a declaration that a key clause under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 — particularly Section 3(2) and Explanation 1 — is unconstitutional. He has contended that the provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by allowing gynaecologists to terminate pregnancies on mental health grounds, even though they are not qualified to assess psychological conditions. He has also asked the court to rule that abortions should only be allowed when the life of the woman or the foetus is in immediate danger, not in cases of failed contraception or presumed mental anguish. The PIL, filed through advocates Dr Pankaj Nanhera, Sanchar Anand, Nitin Verma, and Yogesh Vashista, came up for hearing on Wednesday before the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. The bench issued notice to the Union government and fixed the next hearing for September 16. Section 3(2) of the MTP Act allows a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy if it risks the woman's life or may cause 'grave injury' to her physical or mental health. For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, the opinion of one doctor is sufficient; between 20 and 24 weeks, two doctors must concur for certain categories of women. Explanation 1 to this section presumes that if a pregnancy results from the failure of contraceptive methods, the resulting mental anguish is automatically considered a grave mental health injury, making abortion legally permissible. The PIL argues that: The petitioner contends that these provisions enable abortions in situations that fall outside the core intent of the MTP Act, and that such broad presumptions may undermine fetal rights and open doors to female foeticide. Among other reliefs, Deepak Kumar has requested the court to: The court has admitted the petition and listed it for further hearing on September 16.
New Indian Express
14 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC denies abortion plea for 28-week pregnant minor, directs continued care at Niloufer Hospital
HYDERABAD: Rejecting a plea for permission to terminate a 28-week pregnancy, the Telangana High Court has directed Niloufer Hospital for Women and Children in Hyderabad to provide continuous medical care to a pregnant minor and not discharge her until delivery. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka instructed the hospital superintendent to ensure the girl's health and safety throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. According to the case details, the pregnancy resulted from the girl's relationship with her boyfriend. Under Indian law, sexual intercourse with a minor is classified as rape, regardless of consent. The court also asked the Department of Women's Development and Child Welfare, through its principal secretary, to extend full support to the girl via the Sakhi centre, including coordination with the police if needed. The matter will be heard again on October 29. The order was issued on a writ petition filed by the minor's mother, who had sought the constitution of a medical board under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. The petitioner requested an urgent medical examination and termination of her daughter's pregnancy, citing a medical report dated July 22, 2025, which recorded gestational ages of 27 weeks for Twin A and 25 weeks for Twin B. Following an interim order dated July 25, 2025, a medical board examined the girl under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP (Amendment) Act and submitted its report on July 28, 2025. After reviewing the findings and hearing both sides, the court declined to allow termination, citing the advanced stage of pregnancy, 28 weeks, as noted in the report. Justice Bheemapaka, while refusing the termination plea, directed that the minor receive uninterrupted medical assistance and support services during the remaining term.
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Indian Express
No strikes at PGI, Chandigarh, high court reiterates
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday disposed of a petition challenging protests by employee unions at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, while reiterating that no union would be allowed to obstruct patient care or disrupt the functioning of the hospital. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry clarified that the unions 'shall not enter the premises of the PGI' in a manner that causes 'obstruction to the movement of the patients or the employees or officers'. The bench was hearing a batch of petitions, including CWP No. 162 of 2024 and CWP No. 24 of 2024, which had challenged protests, strikes and alleged service disruptions at the premier medical institution. '162 is being disposed. 24 is the same,' the bench noted, indicating that both were being considered together. During the hearing, counsel for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, informed the court that issues relating to the validity of the central government notifications—central to the dispute—were currently under conciliation proceedings before the labour commissioner (central). The court recorded that the labour commissioner 'is about to decide' the matter and noted that further hearings would depend on the outcome of those proceedings. 'As regards the validity of the notifications… the same will be taken up after the Labour Commissioner submits [a decision], or if it fails to take up the issue, the court will hear it in the month of September,' the bench stated. The dispute stems from strikes by central government hospital employees against recent changes in service conditions, following the lapse of certain central notifications. However, the high court made it clear that any demonstration or protest or strike that affects medical services at PGIMER will not be permitted. The bench added that the challenge to the notification 'shall be taken up after the Labour Commissioner submits [a decision], or if the LC fails to do so, the same shall be taken up in the month of September'. The issue traces back to the expiry of an exemption granted to PGIMER under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Through a 2014 notification, the Ministry of Labour and Employment had prohibited the use of contract labour in sanitation, security, and catering services at PGIMER, acting on the advice of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB). PGIMER, however, subsequently sought and obtained exemptions under Section 31 of the Act. These were conditional upon the institute paying contract workers wages and benefits on par with the lowest-paid regular employees. These exemptions were renewed periodically—in 2018, 2020, and 2023—but the latest exemption expired on January 12, 2024. The institute applied for an extension, citing its continued need for contractual staff. However, the CACLB deferred a decision during its July 2024 meeting, as the matter was pending before the high court. According to minutes of a November 5, 2024, meeting placed on record in court, PGIMER stated it had cleared wage arrears for contract workers in compliance with the exemption conditions up to January 13, 2024. Officials from the ministries of Labour and Health, as well as PGIMER, acknowledged that under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour Rules, contract workers performing similar duties must be granted the same wages and working conditions as regular employees. In an interim order dated November 22, 2024, the high court had issued a writ of prohibition, restraining all PGIMER employees—regular or contractual—from striking during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. It had also directed the deputy chief labour commissioner (central), who is presiding over the conciliation process, to endeavour to conclude it within two months. The court further clarified that a strike would not be permitted after the conciliation ends—if adverse to the employees—without explicit permission from the court. With Wednesday's order, the court has formally disposed of petitions relating to the protest and obstruction of medical services. However, the broader question involving the validity of the central notifications remains pending, subject to the outcome of the ongoing conciliation process.
