Latest news with #A.G.Masih
United News of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC issues notice on private schools on govt land hiking fees
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Director of Education (DoE), Government of Delhi, on a plea challenging the Delhi High Court's orders that permitted private unaided schools situated on government-allotted land to hike fees without prior approval from the education department. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, was hearing a special leave petition filed by Naya Samaj Parents Association, contesting two rulings of the Delhi High Court that upheld the autonomy of private schools in revising fee structures. According to the petition, 'private unaided schools in Delhi have increased their fees multifold, in some cases by up to 100% and are initiating penal actions against students for non-payment, thereby creating confusion and panic among parents.' The controversy stems from an interim order passed in April 2024 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools. In this order, the court observed that, as per prevailing law, unaided recognised private schools are not required to seek prior permission from the DoE before raising their fees, regardless of land allotment clauses. The order also stayed a circular issued by the DoE regulating fee proposals from unaided private schools. The petition before the Supreme Court specifically challenges paragraph 29 of this order. Subsequently, in its final order dated April 8, 2025, the High Court's division bench dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the interim order, on the procedural ground that the petitioner was not a party in the original writ proceedings. The petitioner, however, argues that this decision conflicts with previous rulings of both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. It cites the Justice For All vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi case, where the Delhi High Court held that the DoE has the authority under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to regulate fee hikes and prevent profiteering by unaided schools. The petitioner also relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in the landmark Modern School vs Union of India case, which emphasised that private schools on DDA-allotted land must seek prior approval from the DoE before increasing tuition fees. In that case, the Apex Court directed the Director of Education to verify whether schools were complying with the terms of their land allotment and take action in case of violations. A specific clause in the DDA's allotment letters, referred to by the Supreme Court, reads, 'The school shall not increase the rates of tuition fee without the prior sanction of the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration and shall follow the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act/Rules, 1973 and other instructions issued from time to time.' In its ruling in Modern School, the Court had directed, 'The Director of Education shall examine the terms of allotment issued to schools and ensure compliance within three months. In case of non-compliance, appropriate steps shall be taken.' The Supreme Court has now taken cognisance of the petitioner's concerns and issued a notice to the Delhi DoE for its response. The matter is expected to be heard in June. UNI SNG SSP
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The 3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants
There has been growing anxiety for months around the anticipation of a verdict from the Supreme Court (SC) that would bring back a rule wherein an advocate would need three years of practice in order to become eligible to write the judicial services examinations. And now, on May 20, a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, which also included Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran, has made practical experience of three years a pre-requisite to appear for the subordinate judicial services exam. The judgment has substantiated the hypothesis that the SC has been consistently inconsistent on this issue. No empirical evidence was presented to the court about the 'lower quality' of fresh graduates (para 57), and neither was the number of fresh graduates who qualified for judicial services within a year of their graduation given in the judgment. The court simply went back to the three-year rule because majority of the High Courts advocated for it. History of the rule This matter has taken multiple twists since it was addressed in the 14th Law Commission of India (LCI) report in 1958, chaired by M.C. Setalvad. The Commission contended that persons with experience ranging from three to five years shall be eligible to compete in the examinations for lower subordinate judge in every State. This exam was to have questions of practical aspect and would not depend upon rote memorisation alone. Ability to draft pleadings, appreciate evidence and write judgments were also to be tested. Unfortunately, current question papers of most judicial services exams continue to test rote memory only. For higher judiciary, an All India Judicial Services (AIJS), a centralised recruitment system for judges, was proposed. The Commission report was of the opinion that it was necessary to tap brilliant university graduates at the right time to judicial services. Therefore, the AIJS required no practical experience. Anyone holding a law degree, ranging from 21-25 years of age would be eligible, and practical experience was to be developed through a 'carefully devised scheme of training' which includes practical working in the courts. The exam was to be conducted at the National level. That is, the report contended for two different sets of eligibility criteria for recruitment at the State-level (lower subordinate judge exams) and at the national level (AIJS). In the All India Judges' Association versus Union of India, 1992, the question of 'uniformity' in service conditions of judges across India was taken up. The judgment endorsed the LCI Report and its provisions on AIJS including the recommendation to allow fresh law graduates to compete in the exam. The top court issued directions to the Union of India to set up the AIJS. However, a review petition of the Judges' Association case, filed in 1993, held that a minimum legal practice of three years was essential to qualify for the subordinate judicial services examination. The court in All India Judges' Assn. (II) versus Union of India, (1993) held 'in most of the States, the minimum qualifications for being eligible to the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class/Magistrate First Class/Munsiff Magistrate is minimum three years' practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree in law. In some States, however, the requirement of practice is altogether dispensed with and judicial officers are recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. The recruitment of raw graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment. Considering the fact that from the first day of his assuming office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable.' The court went on to observe, 'the experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently …' The court thus gave a strong order, 'We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung.' Attracting talent The Justice Shetty Commission, set up in 1996, found that while almost all States had complied with the three-year rule, some States had gone beyond and prescribed more than three years as minimum qualification. The report also stated that advocates with 4-7 years of experience were getting selected only at the age of 27 to 30. Therefore, in the All India Judges' Association versus Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the three-year-rule had failed to attract the best talent to judicial services, and scrapped the rule. The court was candid in admitting that, 'with the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with…' Now, the Supreme Court has again gone back to the three year rule, as the crucial question of how to balance attracting the best talent along with the necessary skills is still valid. For that one must understand ground realities. No one can deny that the best law students today are in National Law Universities. Most of these students get lucrative corporate placements with huge pay packages. Many of them also need to repay education loans as almost all law universities' five-year fee ranges between ₹12-₹15 lakh. Reputed private law schools charge even more, between ₹20-₹40 lakh. The SC yet again hopes that three years' of practice may help future judges in addressing courtroom decorum, complex procedural cases and in understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders of the judicial system. Young candidates are said to lack maturity, empathy and patience. The reality is, however, that most candidates wishing to practice don't see judicial services as a career option, while those who wish to enter judicial services rarely see practice as a career option. Most States find it difficult to fill vacancies of the higher judicial services due to the poor performance of candidates in the written examinations. Recently, Rajasthan notified that not a single candidate was found suitable. The fact of the matter is that the mandatory three-years of practice rule will significantly discourage brighter minds from joining the judicial services. Economically backward and SC/ST/OBC candidates would be the worst hit, as they cannot afford to wait. It becomes necessary for them to start earning. These candidates would be keen to write examinations to enter civil services, public sector undertakings (PSUs), or even join academia. Various challenges The Bar Council of India has encouraged senior advocates and firms to pay a minimum of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban centres to junior lawyers. This bare minimum stipend is not enough for a law student having no connections in the field. Non-matriculants in Delhi are paid ₹20,371 a month for clerical work or supervisory work in scheduled employment. An unskilled worker is paid ₹18, 456 a month as per the minimum Wages Act. Only financially sound candidates would have the luxury to appear for judicial services if the three year condition is brought back. Additionally, as per the India Justice Report, women account for 38% of the judges in district judiciary. Nine out of the top 10 candidates from the recently held Bihar judicial services exam were female candidates. Now, if the three-year rule is implemented, a number of these women, going through career breaks or maternity leaves, will suffer a setback. Another problem is with regard to age. To appear for the civil services examinations, the minimum eligibility criteria is to be a final year student of a three-year degree programme. But for the judicial services examination, five-six years of education together with three years of experience would make them highly financially vulnerable as well as older compared to their counterparts in the civil services. This classification would neither be based on intelligible differentia nor achieve the rational object of attracting the best minds. Moreover, unlike the civil services, the judicial services exam in most States is not held at regular intervals. Even if a candidate has fulfilled the three year criteria, he/she has to wait for another few years for the exam to be advertised. What can be done? The solution is to catch young talent and enhance the training period to two years or more and use the best of academic and practical skills to enhance efficiency of the lower rung of the judiciary. Trainee officers may be required to serve as probationers to serving District and Sessions Judge or Justices of the High Court to enhance their understanding of the courtroom. For six months, they may be attached to senior lawyers as well. We must also reform the examination and come up with innovative questions. The examination should be based on scenario-based questions, and judgment writing should carry more weightage. Excluding fresh talent may do more harm than good to our judicial system. Faizan Mustafa is Vice-Chancellor, Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Shrey Shalin is an is LL.M. candidate at National Law University, Delhi. Views expressed are personal.
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court grants interim relief to DICCI in sanitation scheme case
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19, 2025) granted interim relief to the Dalit Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DICCI) in connection with a case alleging corruption by the body in the implementation of a scheme for the welfare of sanitation workers and the Dalit community in Tamil Nadu. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih kept in abeyance an order passed by the high court in connection with the implementation of the Annal Ambedkar Business Champions Scheme (AABCS). The top court also asked the high court to consider the impleadment of DICCI, so that they get an opportunity to be heard before any decision was taken in the case. 'Let the present petitioners [DICCI] be impleaded as respondents. Let the high court consider the application and let an order be passed after hearing all parties. Till such an order is passed, let the impugned order be kept in abeyance,' the top court ordered. The brief hearing saw the Bench question the urgency with which the high court had taken up the petition filed by activist Savukku Shankar during the court's vacation and passed the interim order which came under challenge. Mr. Shankar had sought a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into allegations of diversion of funds.
Hans India
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC to examine plea against encroachment of Andhra's Kolleru Lake
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea raising concerns about the destruction and encroachment of the Kolleru Lake in Andhra Pradesh, one of the largest freshwater lakes in India. A bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih issued notice in the matter and sought responses from the Centre, National Wetlands Authority, Andhra Pradesh government, and other authorities arrayed as respondents in the petition. Kolleru Lake, a Ramsar site located in Andhra Pradesh, was declared a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention in 2002. As per the petition, encroachments and illegal constructions have posed a significant threat to the ecological balance of Kolleru Lake, a vital habitat for numerous migratory bird species. The plea, filed through advocate Neha Rai, sought the top court's intervention against the proposed Andhra Pradesh's 'unauthorised and environmentally detrimental' project to mitigate salinity in the ecologically sensitive Kolleru Lake, which was initiated without obtaining mandatory environmental clearances or conducting any scientific study. Earlier, the appellant, Dr Patanjali Sastry, an eminent environmental and social activist with a distinguished record of public service in ecological conservation, had moved the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking a declaration that the proposed project was violative of environmental statutes, and sought formation of an independent expert committee to assess the ecological impact and identify encroachments. He had also sought directions for the removal of encroachments and restoration of the lake to its original status, and imposition of exemplary penalties on violators. In his appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the appellant said that while NGT issued directions in respect of compliance with environmental laws, it failed to pass any orders on other substantive and critical prayers, thereby rendering its decision non-speaking, incomplete, and legally unsustainable. The green tribunal egregiously failed to adjudicate upon the other substantive prayers, despite being presented with compelling documentary evidence, including government reports, photographs, and official correspondence confirming the widespread encroachment and ecological degradation of Kolleru lake, contended the appeal. 'Such failure amounts to non-application of mind and dereliction of the statutory duty vested in the Tribunal under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010,' the appeal added.
