School merger order violates RTE Act: Petitioners' counsel
Two special appeals have been filed—one by 5 children and the other by 17 children from Sitapur district through their parents. Senior advocate LP Mishra and advocate Gaurav Mehrotra are representing petitioners in court. They have completed their arguments in court.
Mishra argued that the state government's order to merge schools violates the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, for children aged 6-14. He also raised concerns that the merger would create problems for young children as they would have to travel long distances to attend school.
Now, the state government's lawyers are presenting their counter-arguments. Both sides are supporting their claims with precedents. On the other hand, the state government, represented by additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, argued that the merger was in the best interest of children, aiming to optimise resource utilisation.
The government cited 18 primary schools with zero students and stated that merging such schools with nearby ones would ensure better use of teachers and facilities, ultimately improving education quality.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's petition against in-house committee report on July 28
A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Mashi is due to hear a petition scheduled on July 28 filed by Allahabad HC judge Justice Yashwant Varma. The petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure & the subsequent recommendation of then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, for his removal from office, in connection with the allegation that the half-burnt currency was found in his residential premises in Delhi on the intervening night of March 14-15. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mention for an early hearing of the petition, said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by former CJI Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai's willingness to judicially examine the question of the removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, petitioned in the Supreme Court on July 18, 2025, arguing that the in-house inquiry process, which recommended his removal from office, was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges constituted by the then-Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at Justice Varma's official residence after a blaze on March 14 and 15 this year. Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma had refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Maintenance tribunals under senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has held that the maintenance tribunals under the senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims, especially in case of third party disputes and these must be adjudicated before civil courts. Maintenance tribunals under senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims: Allahabad HC Dismissing a writ petition filed by a man named Ishak, a division bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and YK Srivastava said, "The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property." "There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. The disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the civil courts of competent jurisdiction," the bench said. The petitioner had sought protection of his life and property under rule 21 of UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. He claimed that he was threatened by the private respondents because he wanted to construct a gate on his private property. It was argued that the Senior Citizens Act and rules protect them not only against their children but also against third parties. The court observed that the Act was enforced to protect the senior citizens who were neglected due to withering joint family structures in India. It observed that section 4 of the 2007 Act entitles a senior citizen who is unable to fend for himself to maintenance. The section 5 of the Act empowers such a senior citizen to make an application before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Act. The court held that obstruction by the petitioner's neighbour in constructing a gate over his property did not fall within the purview of the Senior Citizens Act and no legal right there under was infringed. In the hearing on July 16, the court thereby dismissed the petition. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta will hear on Monday Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry report accusing him of being complicit in sacks of cash found at his official residence and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's decision to send the report to the President and the PM with the recommendation for his removal. Justice Varma will be represented by a battery of senior advocates - Kapil Sibal , Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal. Since most senior SC judges were part of the collegium and in some way or the other acquainted with the administrative proceedings relating to Justice Varma, who was repatriated to Allahabad HC from Delhi after the discovery of cash at his residence, CJI Gavai has assigned hearing of the petition to a bench led by Justice Datta. When then CJI Khanna was heading the collegium, Justices Gavai, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath were part of it. Justice Datta is 10th in seniority among Supreme Court judges. CJI Gavai had on Wednesday recused from hearing Justice Varma's petition on the ground that he was part of the administrative process relating to transfer of the judge from Delhi HC to his parent Allahabad HC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had requested a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday for an urgent hearing on Justice Varma's petition even as the Lok Sabha speaker commenced proceedings relating to a notice for removal of the judge signed by more than 150 MPs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Sibal had told the CJI that Justice Varma's petition raised some important constitutional questions relating to the in-house report and the recommendation for his removal. In his petition, Justice Varma has questioned why Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Service personnel, who discovered the cash, did not seize it or prepare a 'panchnama' (statement of witnesses in writing corroborating the discovery of cash), which alone could have been admissible evidence.
