Order for merger of primary schools: Petitioners' counsel alleges violation of Article 21A, UP govt justifies move
On the other hand, the state government justified its decision, asserting that the step is in the larger interest of students and for better utilisation of its resources.
The hearing will continue on Friday in the court of Justice Pankaj Bhatia.
Fifty-one students from Sitapur – 50 from a primary school and one from the upper primary section – have approached the high court challenging the June 16 order of the state government for the merger of primary schools across UP. They approached the court through their guardian.
They opposed the merger, stating that it will cause difficulties for children who will have to travel farther to reach their new schools, affecting their right to free and compulsory education.
Senior advocate LP Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra represented the petitioners in court.
'The Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, added by the 86th Amendment in 2002, guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 6 and 14,' said Mishra.
'It makes primary education a fundamental right. It makes the state duty bound to provide free and compulsory education to all eligible children, and this right cannot be waived,' Mishra added.
'This Article also mandates that the government will have to set up a primary school within one km for a population of every 300 people so that small children do not have to travel far to reach school,' added Mishra.
'The government is duty bound to create resources for schools within these parameters,' Mishra argued in court.
On behalf of the state government, additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel (CSC) Shailendra Kumar Singh argued in court.
Senior advocate Sandeep Dixit represented the basic education department.
Opposing the petition, AAG and CSC defended the state government's June 16 order of merger of primary schools.
They argued that the government's decision is in the larger interest of students and for better utilisation of resources.
The government counsel will continue their argument in court on Friday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A deliberate strategy to usher in a communal order
On the eve of the 75th anniversary of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the foundational character of the Indian Republic by upholding the inclusion of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Constitution's Preamble. These words, introduced through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, by the Indira Gandhi-led government during the Emergency, have been the target of repeated political and legal attacks by right-wing forces. Dismissing a batch of petitions challenging these additions, a Bench of the Supreme Court recently upheld the addition of these words, arguing that the mere absence of these terms in the original Preamble adopted on November 26, 1949, cannot invalidate their inclusion. This legal reaffirmation was a powerful signal from the judiciary. But the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological backbone of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), chose to launch a fresh offensive on the very idea of India as enshrined in the Constitution. RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale made a brazen demand: the removal of 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble, which, according to him, were alien to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's constitutional vision. The Vice-President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, went a step further, terming the insertion of these words as 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan'. It is no coincidence that these statements are being made from some of the highest offices of the land. This is not an intellectual debate. This is a deliberate political strategy to delegitimise the modern, plural, democratic republic of India and to usher in a communal and hierarchical order. An agenda, from fringe to mainstream When the Constitution was being framed, the Constituent Assembly, emphatically and unanimously, supported the idea of a secular state. Not a single member argued for a theocratic state. The idea of India was built on the foundations of unity in diversity — a rejection of colonial divide-and-rule, of communal politics, and of caste and religious supremacy. Today, the RSS-BJP establishment is working relentlessly to dismantle that consensus and impose the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. This agenda has moved from fringe rhetoric to the political mainstream. On the day of the consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a provocative statement equating 'Ram with Rashtra and Dev with Desh'. This kind of fusion of religion and state is exactly what the framers of the Constitution warned against. It is also directly in contradiction to the Supreme Court's ruling that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution — something that cannot be amended or erased, even by Parliament. Leaders and their warnings The warnings of our national leaders resonate even more forcefully today. In 1931, Mahatma Gandhi, in his resolution on Fundamental Rights, insisted that the state must remain neutral in religious matters. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar too reflected this in the line, 'The State shall not recognise any religion as State religion.' What is particularly instructive,and ironic, is that the Hindu Mahasabha, which boycotted the freedom movement and opposed secular nationalism, included a similar provision in its 1944 Hindustan Free State Act. The Constituent Assembly Debates further highlight the intent of India's founding generation. On August 27, 1947, Govind Ballabh Pant posed a direct question: 'Do you want a real national secular State or a theocratic State?' He warned that if India became a theocracy, it could only be a Hindu state, raising questions about the status and security of those who would be excluded from such a polity. Jaspat Roy Kapoor, on November 21, 1949, noted that Gandhi had made it clear: religion should be a personal matter. On November 22, 1949, Begum Aizaz Rasul called secularism 'the most outstanding feature' of the Constitution and expressed hope that it would remain 'guarded and unsullied'. On October 14, 1949, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel reassured the nation that the Constitution of free India would not be 'disfigured by any provision on a communal basis.' And on November 23, T.J.M. Wilson warned that the clouds threatening India's secular character were already forming. These warnings were not alarmist but were deeply perceptive, and speak with urgency to our times. The present RSS-led campaign is also aimed at discrediting and eliminating the socialist orientation of the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, clearly noted that the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution were rooted in socialist ideals. The Supreme Court's recent decision, rightly interpreted the term 'socialist' in the Preamble as synonymous with a welfare state. This vision resonates with B.R. Ambedkar's own emphasis on the social and economic transformation of India — an end to caste exploitation, landlessness, poverty, and discrimination. Socialism means creating conditions for equality and justice — not the importation of any foreign ideology, but the realisation of the promises of the freedom struggle. In this regard, B.R. Ambedkar issued perhaps the most unambiguous warning ever — in Pakistan or the Partition of India, he wrote: 'If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.' That cost is now upon us. The RSS's demand to remove the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Constitution is part of a long-term project to dismantle the very edifice of the modern Indian Republic and to institutionalise a new order built on religious supremacy, caste hierarchy, market fundamentalism, and political authoritarianism. The need for resistance This must be resisted — through public awareness, legal challenge, political mobilisation, and mass democratic struggle. The Constitution is not just a legal document. It is a political, social, and moral covenant forged in the crucible of our freedom struggle. It embodies the dreams of countless martyrs, revolutionaries, and constitutionalists who envisioned an India that belonged to all its people. To defend secularism and socialism today is to defend democracy itself. It is to defend the right of every citizen — regardless of faith, caste, class, or gender — to live with dignity, equality, and freedom. The Republic must be protected, nourished, and, if necessary, defended against those who seek to destroy it from within. Let us rise to that responsibility, with courage, with clarity, and with collective resolve. D. Raja is General Secretary, Communist Party of India
India Gazette
15 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"It Is the Job of the Opposition to find faults": Choudhary defends EC
Patna (Bihar) [India], July 4 (ANI): Bihar Minister Ashok Choudhary on Friday came out in strong support of the Election Commission of India (ECI), amid rising opposition allegations that the ongoing voter list update process is biased. Choudhary said that the opposition is merely seeking excuses for its anticipated electoral defeat while the Commission is working towards enhancing transparency in the electoral process. Defending the move, Minister Choudhary told ANI, ' It is the job of the opposition to find faults in everything. They are just looking for issues to blame their defeat on. The Election Commission is bringing transparency in the voter process, stage-wise...' Responding to AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi's letter to RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, Choudhary remarked, 'They are fighting hard for the 30%. We have 70% with us.' The remarks come as the opposition, led by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader, has intensified its criticism of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise currently underway in Bihar. 'We have been continuously requesting time from the Election Commission that our delegation wants to meet you. It is unfortunate that in the state where elections are to be held, if the opposition wants to meet, the Election Commission is not providing time for the meeting. These people are bent on destroying democracy, the Election Commission is determined to shred the Constitution,' Yadav told ANI. RJD leader added, 'The party's national president Lalu Yadav himself has written a letter to the Election Commission, but no reply has come... It seems that the Election Commission has become the BJP's commission. The BJP and Nitish Kumar are silent because they are losing; therefore, the Election Commission is helping them from behind... It has never happened before that the Election Commission is not giving time... They talk about one nation, one election, but elections are not being conducted properly in one place, dishonesty is happening...' On Wednesday, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had met representatives of various political parties at Nirvachan Sadan, said the Election Commission. Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on Wednesday said that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar is progressing smoothly and on schedule, despite concerns raised by opposition parties about possible voter exclusion. Speaking at a training session for Booth Level Officers (BLOs), Gyanesh Kumar said, 'The implementation of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar is running as per schedule with the active participation of all election staff and all political parties in a transparent manner. Despite apprehensions of some persons, SIR will ensure that all eligible persons will be included.' The Special Intensive Revision is a focused voter list update exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure electoral rolls are accurate ahead of upcoming elections. Opposition parties, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), have expressed concern that the SIR process may be misused to disenfranchise voters, particularly the poor and marginalised communities. In response, the ECI stated that the exercise is being conducted strictly in line with the provisions of Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It said the aim is to remove ineligible entries while ensuring that no eligible voter is left out. 'Commission stated that SIR is being conducted per provisions of Article 326, RP Act 1950 & instructions issued on 24.06.2025. Party representatives raised concerns related to SIR. Each concern which was raised by any member of PP was fully addressed by the Commission,' the ECI said in an official Commission also clarified that while some party representatives had prior appointments, others were allowed to join the meeting without one.'Some of the participants were given an appointment and others were allowed to join in without any prior appointment as the Commission decided to meet two representatives from every party to listen to all views,' the statement said. The ECI assured that the SIR would be conducted transparently and fairly, with measures in place to support vulnerable groups, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and economically vulnerable individuals. A group of 18 leaders from 11 political parties met with the Election Commissioners regarding the upcoming Bihar elections. The exercise has faced heavy criticism from the SIR involves house-to-house verification, online submission of forms, and assistance from Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and volunteers. (ANI)
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC junks plea over error in NEET-UG 2025 answer key
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by a student seeking correction of an alleged error in the final answer key for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test undergraduate exam 2025 ( NEET UG 2025 ). A division bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan observed that it would not interfere with the results of a nationwide examination based on an individual's grievance, even if the error claimed was genuine. Petitioner and candidate Shivam Gandhi Raina had challenged the correctness of one question of the NEET-UG 2025 question paper. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Experience cinema like never before Boat Buy Now Undo He claimed that the answer marked by the National Testing Agency (NTA) was flawed. The petitioner sought a stay on the ongoing counselling process and revision of the result. The bench said it cannot entertain such individual challenges once the results are declared for a pan-India competitive examination . The petitioner's counsel argued that the SC had intervened in NEET-UG 2024. Live Events The petitioner's counsel contended that the instant matter affects the career of students. "One mark difference will mean a lot. So many students are affected by this," the petitioner's counsel said, demanding the constitution of an expert committee to examine the said question. The court, however, drew a distinction between last year's case and the current one. The Bench said the top court's intervention in 2024 was due to widespread grievances regarding the discrepancies and shortcomings in the conduct of the exam.
