Latest news with #AllahabadHighCourtRules
Hindustan Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC dismisses plea against Ramayana, Veda workshops in basic schools of U.P.
: The Allahabad high court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the letter issued by the director, International Ramayana and Vedic Research Institute, Ayodhya, regarding the organising of summer Ramayana and Veda workshops in basic schools of Uttar Pradesh. With this order, these workshops proposed in the basic schools of the state can now be held. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra gave this verdict while dismissing the PIL filed by Dr Chaturanan Ojha. The director, International Ramayana and Vedic Research Institute, Ayodhya had issued a letter on May 5, 2025 requesting all the basic shiksha adhikaris (BSA) of the state that Summer Ramayana and Veda Abhiruchi Workshops are proposed to be organised by the International Ramayana and Vedic Research Institute, Ayodhya in all 75 districts of the state. The court, while dismissing the petition, observed, 'The petitioner, without disclosing his credentials except for as noticed hereinbefore, claiming himself to be a socially conscious citizen and an academic, has failed to comply with the requirements of the Allahabad High Court Rules pertaining to filing of the public interest litigation, which requires several declarations.' 'The petitioner has nowhere indicated as to how and in what manner, he came in possession of the said documents, being a resident of district Deoria as the communication has been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, a different district. The petitioner apparently has attempted to suppress his credentials,' the bench added.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC nixes plea challenging Ramayan, Veda workshops
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the letter issued by the director, International Ramayana and Vedic Research Institute, Ayodhya regarding organizing of summer Ramayan and Veda workshops in basic schools of Uttar Pradesh. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With this order, these workshops proposed in the basic schools of the state can now be organised. A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhasali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra gave this verdict on May 22 while dismissing the PIL filed by Dr Chaturanan Ojha. The director issued a letter on May 5, 2025, requesting all BSAs to make arrangements for summer workshops organised by the institute in all 75 districts. Ojha challenged the letter, calling it discriminatory. He argued that it promoted a particular religion. He added that such directives in public schools were unconstitutional. The court while dismissing the petition observed, "The petitioner, without disclosing his credentials except for as noticed hereinbefore, claiming himself to be a socially conscious citizen and an academic, has failed to comply with the requirements of the Allahabad High Court Rules pertaining to filing of the public interest litigation, which requires several declarations." "The petitioner has nowhere indicated as to how and in what manner, he came in possession of the said documents, being a resident of district Deoria as the communication has been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, a different district. The petitioner apparently has attempted to suppress his credentials," added the court.
Hindustan Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Relief for litigants: HC stays ₹500 charge for photo identification
Providing relief to litigants, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court, as an interim measure, has directed that the charge of ₹500 for photo identification by Bar Associations is not to be realised from them. In another interim measure, the court further directed the registry to accept affidavits sworn before public notaries, holding them valid under the Notaries Act, 1952, saying no rule prohibits their acceptance. Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on May 19 while hearing a petition filed by M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co., New Delhi, through its authorised signatory Sunil Kumar Magoo, challenging the requirement of photo identification for filing petitions. The court said that in the era where efforts are being made to promote digital India, 'continuing with a regressive practice of the litigants travelling from far-off places solely for photo identification is, on the face of it, is retrogressive'. The court observed that the practice had led the High Court Bar Association and the Oudh Bar Association to charge amounts 'beyond the sanction of law, solely based upon resolutions.' It remarked that 'continuation of such a practice is neither desirable nor does it augur well for the temple of justice,' which must function with the support of Bar Associations to fulfil the constitutional goal of providing 'access to justice to all'. Earlier, the petitioner's counsel had sought an adjournment to file a supplementary affidavit, citing the deponent's inability to travel to Lucknow for photo identification. In response, the court questioned why the affidavit could not be sworn before a notary at the deponent's place of residence, as permitted under the Notaries Act, 1952. The petitioner's counsel explained that while there was no bar under the Act, the registry at the Allahabad high court typically accepts only affidavits sworn before oath commissioners appointed under Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Noting that prima facie an additional cost ( ₹400-500) being charged from the litigants, which is going to the lawyers from the photo affidavit centre, was not sanctioned by law, the court had appointed advocate Tushar Mittal as amicus curiae to assist the court on the said issue. The court, however, said that the Bar Associations were at liberty to take measures for the welfare of lawyers, but no such amount could be charged in connection with the filings made before the high court. Accordingly, the court disposed of the issue, however, it ordered the writ petition would continue on its merits.
