Latest news with #StateofTamilNadu
Indian Express
08-08-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Private schools can't deny admission to children with disability. They are legally bound to admit them
By Somya Jain In July 2025, the Delhi High Court directed a private school in Delhi to re-admit a Class I student with autism who had previously been denied admission due to her disability. While the child was enrolled, the school raised concerns about her behaviour and repeatedly urged the family to withdraw her, which eventually led to her exit. However, when the parents later sought re-admission, the school refused, again citing her behaviour, despite being aware of her disability. In this current case, the Court not only ordered the child's re-admission but also directed the school to provide her with the necessary support to access her education (Aadriti Pathak vs GD Goenka Public School). The instances that led to the case show that the legal protections for children with disabilities remain poorly understood. The private schools continue to violate these rights with little accountability, and parents, often unaware of the protections available, are left to navigate the consequences. This also happens due to the misconception that the responsibility to support children with disabilities lies solely with government schools, and not private institutions. This assumption doesn't stand the legal scrutiny. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWDA) is a dedicated legislation for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities in India, which includes the right to inclusive education. In particular, Section 16(i) of the RPWDA mandates that all schools — both public and private, recognised by government and local authorities — admit children with disabilities without discrimination. Section 16 also requires all schools to make their premises and facilities accessible and provide necessary accommodations based on the child's individual needs. Thus, private schools have binding obligations towards children with disabilities. Another widespread misconception is that children with disabilities are meant to study only in 'special schools' designed exclusively for them. The RPWDA firmly rejects this idea. It establishes that every child with a disability has the right to inclusive education, which means a system where children with and without disabilities learn together. Therefore, schools do not have the discretion to direct parents towards special schools or suggest that children with disabilities do not belong in 'regular' classrooms. In fact, Section 12(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, mandates that private schools reserve 25 per cent of entry-level seats for children from disadvantaged groups. While these legal provisions exist on paper, their violations are common. Numerous complaints filed by parents reveal how routinely schools deny admission to children with disabilities. In The Child vs State of Tamil Nadu (2023), a case similar to that of Aadriti Pathak, the Madras High Court directed a school to admit a child with autism after it had initially refused admission due to the unavailability of a special educator. Complaints submitted to the Chief and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities also highlight the scale of the issue, where schools continue to cite lack of infrastructure or trained staff as reasons for denying admission. To put an end to such rampant violations and ensure that the law is meaningfully enforced, both parents and schools must be aware that these legal provisions are non-negotiable. Failure to comply can lead to consequences such as fines, loss of recognition of the school and judicial directions to comply with the law. Interestingly, remedies for denial of admission have also been observed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In Sneh Lata vs Bal Bharti Public School (2023), the Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the school to pay compensation of Rs 25,000 to parents for denying admission to their child with a hearing impairment. When legal rights are not widely known, violations go unchallenged, and those responsible remain complacent. This is especially true for children with disabilities, many of whom, particularly those with invisible disabilities like autism, go unidentified, and their entitlements are never exercised. As the law and policy landscape gradually shifts toward inclusion, it's time for the public to do its part: Stay informed, demand accountability, and ensure that no child is left behind simply because no one knew their right ever existed. The writer is a research fellow at Vidhi Legal Centre
New Indian Express
28-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
TN Government challenges Presidential Reference in SC, calls it ‘headless and devoid of merits'
Calling the reference 'headless and devoid of merits,' the TN government argued that the Presidential Reference of 13 May 2025 raised questions of law concerning the interpretation of the powers of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution and the powers of the President under Article 201 of the Constitution, along with ancillary issues, which have already been directly answered by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) in an exhaustive manner. The state also referred to the Court's opinion in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat (1974), which held that an opinion rendered by this Court in a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution is advisory in nature and not binding in subsequent cases, although it carries great persuasive value. 'Therefore, the present Presidential Reference is headless and devoid of merit,' the TN government submitted. It further stated that the reference no longer raised any legitimate substantial questions of law warranting the Court's opinion. Earlier on 22 July, the Supreme Court had agreed to examine President Droupadi Murmu's reference containing 14 questions concerning the timelines prescribed by the Court to State Governors and the President while dealing with bills passed by the Assembly. The Constitution Bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, during a brief hearing on 22 July, issued notice to the Centre and all states, seeking their detailed responses by 29 July on the Presidential Reference, which asked whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by the Assembly. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 29 August. The CJI-led bench also made it clear that the Court would seek the help and assistance of the Attorney General (AG), the Centre's top law officer, R. Venkataramani, in the matter. The apex court also said it would examine whether the exercise of discretion by Governors and the President on bills can be subjected to judicially enforceable timelines. Earlier, on 8 April, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that a Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a bill, and within one month when a bill is re-enacted.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Can SC set deadlines for President? Murmu seeks top court's opinion on 14 questions
The apex court passed a judgment in April on the State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr and held that the Governors cannot sit over bills passed by the state legislature indefinitely read more President Droupadi Murmu has asked a barrage of questions to the Supreme Court as she responded to its last month's landmark judgement that set a three-month limit for the head of the state to act on state bills. President Murmu asked the top court how it could pass such a judgment when the Indian Constitution has no stipulations on the time taken by the president to veto or pocket veto bills. She has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on a legal issue or matter of public importance, exercising the presidential power to consult the court in such cases. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What did the court say? The apex court passed a judgment in April on the State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr and held that the Governors cannot sit over bills passed by the state legislature indefinitely. A bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan laid down the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution as it passed the judgment. The bench stated that the phrase 'as soon as possible' in Article 200 conveys a sense of urgency and does not permit the governor to 'sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them.' What has Prez Murmu asked? Here are all the questions posed by President Murmu: What are the constitutional options before a governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200? Is the governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a Bill is presented before him? Is the constitutional discretion by the guv under Art 200 justiciable? Is Article 361 an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to actions of a guv under Article 200? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timeline be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the purpose of exercise of all powers under Article 200 by the governor? Is exercise of constitutional discretion by President under Article 201 justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and manner of exercise prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201? In the light of the constitutional scheme governing powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of SC by way of a reference under Article 143 and take SC's opinion when the governor reserves a Bill for President's assent or otherwise? Are decisions of the guv and President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for courts to undertake judicial adjudication over contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law? Can the exercise of constitutional powers and orders of/by President/governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142? Is the law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor? In view of Article 145(3) is it not mandatory for any bench of SC to first decide whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to it a bench of minimum five judges? Do the powers of SC under Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 extend to issuing directions/passing orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force? Does Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of SC to resolve disputes between Union government and state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131?
New Indian Express
03-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court's verdict on actions of Governor a victory for TN, check on imperial excess
The Supreme Court's verdict in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, delivered on April 8, is a major win for the non-negotiable constitutional ideals of federalism and representative democracy. The court's historic decision came in response to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the governor's exercise of 'pocket veto' of 10 bills lawfully passed by the state Assembly. The context is that the governor sat on 12 bills – some dating back to 2020 – for several years. When the aggrieved state government approached the court in November 2023, the governor referred two bills for the President's consideration. Thereafter, the state Assembly convened a special session and re-passed the remaining 10 bills for which assent was withheld. When these 10 bills were re-presented before him, the governor referred them for President's consideration. Out of these 10 bills, only one bill was assented to by the President, while the remaining were either rejected or kept pending. The court's decision evinces laudable temerity in exposing the governor's blatant disregard for the Constitution through practicing gubernatorial procrastination. Article 200 of the Constitution obliges the governor to adopt one of the following three options when a bill is presented before him: Grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for President's consideration. The expression 'as soon as possible' appearing in the first proviso to Article 200 mandates the governor to act with expediency. The Constitution nowhere envisages a 'pocket veto' or 'absolute veto' exercisable by the governor at will.
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
A reminder to the President and Governors
The Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) lays down the correct constitutional position and is unassailable. However, some people have questioned the judgment. My answer to them is that the Constitution has created a parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary system As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out on November 4, 1948, 'The Draft Constitution in recommending the Parliamentary system of Executive has preferred more responsibility to more stability.' He amplified this position stating, 'The American form of Government is called the Presidential system of Government. What the Draft Constitution proposes is the Parliamentary system... Under the Presidential system of America, the President is the Chief head of the Executive. The administration is vested in him. Under the Draft Constitution the President occupies the same position as the King under the English Constitution. He is the head of the State but not of the Executive. He represents the Nation but does not rule the Nation. He is the symbol of the nation. His place in the administration is that of a ceremonial device on a seal by which the nation's decisions are made known... The President of the Indian Union will be generally bound by the advice of his Ministers. He can do nothing contrary to their advice nor can he do anything without their advice.' This position stands affirmed in Article 52 of the Constitution which states that 'there shall be a President of India' and in Article 153 which states that 'there shall be a Governor for each State'. Article 74 provides for 'a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President' and Article 163 provides for 'a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor'. In 1949, the draft Constitution had proposed to include Schedule IV, which was intended to serve as an Instrument of Instruction. However, this was deleted at the instance of the Drafting Committee. The deletion was protested by the members but justified by T. T. Krishnamachari who said, 'It has now been felt that the matter should be left entirely to convention rather than be put into the body of the Constitution as Schedules, in the shape of Instrument of Instructions, and there is a fairly large volume of opinion which favours that idea.' Dr. Ambedkar said, 'So far as our Constitution is concerned, there is no functionary created by it who can see that these instruments of Instruction are carried out faithfully by the Governor. Secondly, the discretion which we are going to leave with the Governor under this Constitution is very meagre... He has to act on the advice of the Prime Minister in the matter of the selection of Members of the Cabinet'. Earlier, while discussing Article 52, the Constituent Assembly rejected the substitution proposed to draft Article 41 (now Article 52) proposed by K.T. Shah to the following effect: 'The Chief Executive and Head of the State in the Union of India shall be called the President of India.' Professor Shah justified this by saying that the President represented 'sovereignty of the whole people and of the State as a whole.' But Dr. Ambedkar opposed this saying, 'Prof. K.T. Shah uses the word 'Chief Executive and the Head of the State'. I have no doubt... that what he means is to introduce the American presidential form of executive and not the Parliamentary form of executive... contained in this Draft Constitution. If my friend Prof. Shah were to turn to the report of the Union Constitution Committee, he will see that the Drafting Committee has followed the proposals set out in the report of that Committee. The report of that Committee says that while the President is to be the head of the executive, he is to be guided by a Council of Ministers whose advice shall be binding upon him in all actions that he is supposed to take under the power given to him by the Constitution. He is not to be the absolute supreme head... and that is the Parliamentary form of government in the United States... We have not adopted that system.' The Constitutional Bench in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) amplified this position, holding that the President is '...the Constitutional or formal head of the Union and he exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers'. This judgment was subsequently followed in another Constitutional Bench judgement in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016). A timely reminder The President and the Governor are bound to exercise their executive power in accordance with the Constitution. Every power is coupled with the duty to exercise it for the intended purpose and within a reasonable period. If this is not done, the Writ Court has the duty to step in and require it to be so exercised. The President under Article 60 and the Governor under Article 159 are to take constitutional oaths and affirm to the best of their ability to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law' and 'devote' themselves 'to the service and well-being of the people of India or the State as the case may be'. How then can the President or the Governor of any State defy the Constitution and act against the will of the people? While President Droupadi Murmu maintains the decorum of the office she holds, some Governors have conducted themselves so poorly as to defile the high constitutional positions they hold. The Supreme Court has therefore given a timely reminder to the President and the Governors to respect and adhere to the Constitution and act in the interest of the people. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
