&w=3840&q=100)
HC reserves verdict on pleas against UP govt's move to pair schools
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia reserved the order on two separate petitions filed by Krishna Kumari and others, who are seeking the cancellation of the state government's June 16 order.
The petitioners' counsel, LP Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra, argued that the state government's action violates Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to education for children aged between six and 14 years.
They contended that the implementation of the decision would deprive children of their right to education in their neighbourhood. The government should instead focus on improving the standard of schools to attract more students, the petitioners said.
It was argued by the petitioners that the government has chosen the "easier way" of closing these schools, rather than working towards public welfare, overriding economic gains or losses.
However, Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia, Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh, and Senior Advocate Sandeep Dixit, representing the director of basic education, argued the government's decision was made according to rules and is free from flaws or illegalities.
They stated that many schools have very few, or even no students and clarified that the government has not "merged" the schools but "paired" them, assuring that no primary schools are closed.
During the hearing, Kudesia requested the court to ban reporting on the case, claiming that the ongoing coverage was "tarnishing the image of government lawyers." However, Justice Bhatia rejected this demand, stating that while the government could frame a law to that effect if it wished, the court would not issue such an order.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Amit Shah: PM Modi got draft reworked to bring himself under ambit
PM Modi NEW DELHI: It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who had the draft of Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 reworked to include himself in its ambit, home minister Amit Shah shared in a post on X on Wednesday. Sources in the government said Modi added the provision requiring a prime minister who spends 30 consecutive days under arrest or detention for an alleged offence punishable with a prison term extending up to five years or more, to resign on the 31st day, based on the reasoning that moral standards in politics must apply as much to prime ministers as they do to any chief minister or minister at the Centre and in states or Union Territories. The original draft of the 130th Constitutional amendment Bill had proposed to cover only chief ministers and ministers at the Centre and in the states. As per the Bill, introduced by Shah on Wednesday, in case the prime minister does not tender his resignation on the 31st day of his arrest, "he shall cease to hold office from the day falling thereafter". The Bill was on Wednesday referred to a joint parliamentary committee for thorough scrutiny. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Europe Travel Hack That Saves You Hundreds on Trips! Learn More Undo Dismissing the opposition's charge that the Bill was a ploy by the Modi regime to dislodge state govts by having their chief ministers and ministers removed through arrest in "motivated" cases, a senior govt functionary said that the same provisions apply to the prime minister and Union ministers. The functionary said it was high time that the PM, CM and ministers display character and conduct that aligns with constitutional morality and principles of good governance, and cited the example of govt employees who are deemed suspended if detained in custody for only 48 hours. "Why should bureaucrats/govt personnel alone bear moral responsibility in the event of detention or arrest? Ministers are also public servants and must withdraw from office if arrested for 30 days. They can always rejoin the same post after release," underlined the functionary. He added that the 30-day timeframe is enough for the affected PM/CM/minister to apply for bail and have it heard and decided, right till the last court of appeal.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
People will decide if governments can be run from jails: Amit Shah
Amit Shah NEW DELHI: Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday asserted that, unlike the Congress party 's approach of placing the Prime Minister above the law, the BJP 's policy ensures that the Prime Minister, ministers, and chief ministers are subject to the rule of law. "Now, the people of the country will have to decide whether it is appropriate for a minister, chief minister, or the PM to run the govt while in jail," Shah posted on X. He highlighted that Narendra Modi introduced a Constitutional Amendment Bill to bring himself under the law's ambit, while the Congress-led opposition opposed it to "remain outside the law's ambit, run govts from jail, and not relinquish their attachment to power". "The purpose of this bill is to elevate the declining level of morality in public life and bring integrity to politics," Shah said. The proposed law stipulates that no person in jail can serve as PM, CM, or minister. He noted, "When the Constitution was framed, our Constitution-makers could not have imagined that in the future, there would be political figures who would not resign on moral grounds before being arrested. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Europe Travel Hack That Saves You Hundreds on Trips! Learn More Undo " Shah pointed out that, in recent years, some CMs and ministers have immorally continued governing from jail without resigning. The bills include a provision allowing an accused politician to seek bail within 30 days of arrest. Shah contrasted this with historical actions, recalling that former PM Indira Gandhi, through Constitutional Amendment No. 39, granted the Prime Minister immunity from legal action. "On the one side, this is the work culture and policy of Congress, that they place the Prime Minister above the law through constitutional amendments. On the other side, the policy of BJP is that we are bringing our govt's PM, ministers, and CMs within the ambit of law," he said. Shah noted that BJP and NDA upheld ethical values, citing veteran LK Advani's resignation following allegations. In contrast, he accused Congress of perpetuating an "unethical tradition" started by Indira Gandhi. He referred to Congress's attempt to protect RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav with an ordinance, which Rahul Gandhi opposed, yet later embraced Yadav publicly in Patna. Shah claimed this exposed the opposition's duplicity. He clarified that the bills were always intended for thorough discussion in the Joint Committee of Parliament. "Yet, abandoning all shame and decency, entire INDI alliance, led by Congress, gathered to oppose it with crude behaviour to protect the corrupt. Today, the opposition has been completely exposed in front of the public," Shah said.
