Latest news with #JusticeAGMasih
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court to examine hike in fees by private schools
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine [CHECK] whether private schools in Delhi that received land at concessional rates can bypass approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) when increasing fees. The move came as the court issued notice on a plea by parents of three students from Delhi Public School (DPS), Dwarka, who were among 32 children expelled for refusing to pay a hiked fee. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice AG Masih issued notice to the Action Committee for Unaided Recognised Private Schools, of which DPS Dwarka is a member. 'We are issuing notice. The policy of the state is that fee regulation will not apply to private schools. But if land is allotted free of cost, then you have to respond,' the bench said, seeking a reply within three weeks. The plea was filed by Divya Mattey, Praveen Madhavankutty, and Saurabh Agarwal, who pointed out that DPS Dwarka had violated a binding Supreme Court order dated January 23, 2017. That ruling had upheld a 2016 Delhi High Court decision requiring schools bound by land allotment clauses to seek DoE approval before raising fees. Appearing for the parents, advocates Manish Gupta and Sandeep Gupta told the court that the school expelled 32 students on May 9 for not paying the increased fees, even though the parents had deposited the amount approved by the DoE for the 2023-24 academic year. The children, they said, were barred from entering school as private bouncers at the gate denied them entry. The parents cited the 2016 Delhi HC judgment, which held that under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, DoE has the authority to regulate fees charged by unaided schools to prevent profiteering. The ruling also allowed such schools to create a Development Fund Account, which could collect up to 15% of annual tuition fees. That decision was unsuccessfully challenged by private school associations. A review petition was dismissed by the high court in July 2016, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in 2017, making it final and binding. The present application was filed in connection with an appeal by the Naya Samaj Parents Association, which is contesting two Delhi High Court orders that had stayed the DoE's fee regulation directives concerning schools with land allotment clauses. These orders were passed on April 29, 2024, and April 8, 2025. Advocate Kamal Gupta, appearing for the Action Committee, told the bench that the parents of the 32 students had already filed a case before the Delhi High Court and were now approaching the Supreme Court while that case was still pending. In a parallel development, the Delhi high court on Wednesday directed the expelled students to pay 50% of the increased fees for the 2024–25 academic session, pending the DoE's decision on their representation. The parents had also filed a separate petition seeking administrative takeover of the school by the DoE and the Delhi Lieutenant Governor, alleging non-compliance with official orders. The latest application by the three parents highlighted that the DoE, in an order dated May 15, directed DPS Dwarka to reinstate the expelled students. The plea also referred to a Delhi High Court observation from April 16, where the court criticised the school for confining the students in a library and denying them access to washrooms over unpaid fees. 'It is extremely shocking that despite the Delhi High Court's April 16 order, the school struck off the names of 32 children on May 9, even though they had paid the DoE-approved fees,' the application said. The case will now be examined further after the Action Committee and DPS Dwarka respond to the Supreme Court's notice.
NDTV
01-05-2025
- NDTV
Insults Like "Impotent" Not Abetment To Suicide: Supreme Court
New Delhi: Insults like "impotent" cannot be considered abetment to suicide, the Supreme Court ruled today while letting an accused couple walk free. The couple's son-in-law had died by suicide and his family had accused them of abetment on basis of a visit when harsh words were used and the daughter was forcibly taken home by her parents. The man died by suicide a month later. In his suicide note, he had accused his in-laws of harassment and said they had called him "impotent". The Madras High Court had refused to cancel the police case against the in-laws. But overturning the High Court's judgment, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih said the note does not directly indicate provocation or persistent cruelty. Only hurtful remarks or abuses do not establish provocation, the judges said, pointing out that the man died a month after the alleged incident of humiliation took place. There was no contact between him and his in-laws in the intervening period. "Merely because the act of the accused is highly offensive to the deceased, would not by itself constitute abetment to suicide," the judges said, referring to the definition of abetment under the law. "The suicide note does not prove that the accused provoked the deceased or subjected him to any persistent cruelty or harassment, which is part of the offence of abetment to suicide," the judges said. "Intent cannot be inferred. It must be clearly present and visible, which is missing in the present case," they added. The court said to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there have to be intention of the accused to aid and abet the deceased to commit suicide. There have to be instigation, conspiracy and aiding the person in suicide.
