Latest news with #21A
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC declines to hear Sanjay Singh's plea against merger of 105 UP primary schools
New Delhi, India: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by (AAP) Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to pair and merge 105 government-run primary schools. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'Are you not trying to enforce rights under the Right to Education Act? If it is a statutory right, then it cannot be camouflaged as a writ petition under Article 32 (dealing with enforcement of fundamental rights)! Let the Allahabad High Court decide the matter,' a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih remarked at the outset. Sensing the Bench's reluctance to hear the matter, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Singh, sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court. The apex court then dismissed the matter as withdrawn. Singh's petition had argued that the government's decision, formalised through a June 16 order and a June 24 list, was 'arbitrary, unconstitutional, and legally impermissible.' It said the merger of schools with low enrolment had adversely affected access to education, forcing children to travel longer distances without transportation or other facilities. This, the plea contended, violated the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Citing Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011, the petition stressed that primary schools must be located 'within one kilometre of a child's residence, particularly in habitations with a population of not less than 300 persons.' 'The state government cannot discharge its duty merely by showing that another school exists somewhere in the vicinity. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now If the school is beyond 1 km, it violates Rule 4(1)(a) unless the exceptions under Rule 4(2) are met — which they are not,' the plea stated. It further argued that any policy or executive action compelling children to travel unreasonable distances to attend school — such as closures or mergers — is prima facie unconstitutional and contrary to Article 21A and the RTE Act. The petition also cited the Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka and Unnikrishnan, J.P. vs State of Andhra Pradesh judgments, which affirmed the right to education as flowing from the right to life and dignity, and as a fundamental right up to the age of 14. IANS
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
HC reserves verdict on pleas against UP govt's move to pair schools
The Allahabad High Court on Friday concluded hearing on pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to pair primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students with nearby institutions, but reserved its verdict. 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.)
The Print
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Allahabad HC reserves verdict on pleas against UP govt's school pairing move
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. 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. Lucknow, Jul 4 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Friday concluded hearing on pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to pair primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students with nearby institutions, but reserved its verdict. 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. PTI COR CDN NSD NSD This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
