HC dismisses plea for stay on merger of primary schools in Uttar Pradesh
A guardian on behalf of 51 students from Sitapur moved the high court against the merger, saying it violated their right to free and compulsory education. The petitioner said the merger will cause difficulties for those who will now have to travel farther to their new schools.
Additional advocate general Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, who appeared for the government, justified the move saying some primary schools had zero and others less than 15 students.
The government said the merger of schools was in the larger interest of students. It added that there will better scope for students relocated from a school having a few pupils to one having 300 of them.
Senior advocate LP Mishra, who represented the petitioner, argued that the state government's June 16 order for the merger violated Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 and a school within one km for a village with a population of 300.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Former CJI DY Chandrachud supports ‘one nation, one election', says it doesn't violate the Constitution
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has supported the constitutional validity of the 'one nation, one election' ( ONOP ) proposal ahead of his scheduled appearance before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on Friday. He is expected to appear along with another former CJI, JS Khehar, a TOI report stated. As per the TOI report, the former CJI, in his written opinion, has said that the Constitution does not mandate separate timings for Lok Sabha and state assembly elections. 'The Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately,' Chandrachud stated in his submission to the JPC, which is headed by BJP MP PP Chaudhary. The ONOP proposal aims to synchronise elections for Parliament and state assemblies. It has faced criticism from opposition parties, who argue it violates the Constitution's basic structure. Chandrachud responded to this, saying staggered elections are not part of the original Constitution and do not form an unchangeable feature. Concerns over Election Commission's powers While supporting the idea, Chandrachud flagged concerns over the extensive powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI) under the ONOP bill. He noted that such powers could allow the ECI to extend or shorten the tenure of a state assembly, which would go beyond the Constitutionally set five-year term. 'Such unbounded authority could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power,' he said. Live Events This concern was also raised earlier by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Chandrachud served as India's 50th Chief Justice from November 2022 to 2024. Voter rights and representation Chandrachud said that holding simultaneous elections would not affect the voters' rights. He argued that the bill provides for continued representation of electors through elected members in both Parliament and legislative assemblies. 'Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated. The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature,' he said. Smaller parties may be marginalised Chandrachud also pointed out that simultaneous elections could benefit national parties over smaller or regional ones. He said this concern must be addressed through legislative policy. He highlighted that while the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 set spending limits for candidates, there is no limit on what political parties themselves can spend. This gap, he noted, gives an advantage to parties with higher financial resources. Midterm polls and government stability The bill proposes that any House elected through midterm polls will serve only the remainder of the original five-year term. Chandrachud said this could weaken a government's ability to carry out significant policy actions if it is elected for a short term. He said the Model Code of Conduct would kick in about six months before the next scheduled election, limiting government actions during that time. Several JPC members have also raised similar concerns. Former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have earlier presented their views before the JPC. Lalit has also supported the constitutional validity of the ONOP proposal.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Liberals don't want Muslim women to demand rights in Hindutva era
I am not suggesting that Indian women as a whole have attained substantive equality as guaranteed by the Constitution. This appears distant, even eight decades after Independence. But Muslim women additionally bear the brunt of belonging to a religious minority. They have to deal with patriarchal orthodoxy within the community and divisive communal onslaught outside. Unlike Hindu and Christian women, they face legal discrimination in family matters without reformed codified Muslim personal laws. This is an injustice suffered by women alone – even as the whole community lives in poverty, economic and educational backwardness, and political apathy. Rising religious polarisation and hate politics have made matters worse in recent years. Her work also highlights that Muslim women seeking justice are neither a figment of imagination nor a part of some political conspiracy. Rather, they remind us of gaps such as unjust personal laws in our democratic system. Forever, Muslim women seeking justice within family and community have been demonised by conservatives as 'bad women'. Speaking to the media, Banu recalled how she was threatened and attacked for amplifying the voices of women in a conservative society. Banu Mushtaq's Heart Lamp won the 2025 International Booker Prize for poignantly telling stories based on the lived realities of Muslim women in a male-dominated society. The jury lauded her work for its 'astonishing portraits of survival and resilience'. Originally written in Kannada and translated into English by Deepa Bhasthi, the stories are universal. The women portrayed can be found across India. Mushtaq's work brings alive the pathos and ingenuity with which ordinary women negotiate the complexities imposed by patriarchy. Muslim women have come under the spotlight since 2014. The women-led movement against instant triple talaq had been going on since 2012, gaining momentum when Shayara Bano approached the Supreme Court in 2016. The Union government then filed an affidavit supporting the abolition of instant triple talaq. Many women survivors of triple talaq, as well as my organisation, joined the petition. We argued that the 'talaq talaq talaq' method of divorce was both un-Quranic and unconstitutional. A major campaign educating the public about the rights of women in Islam was undertaken. Thousands of women joined the movement. The conservative clergy defended the practice and fought for the preservation of the status quo. To them, Shariat is divine and cannot be touched by anyone. Most Opposition political parties kept silent, except some parliamentarians who spoke out in their individual capacity. In 2017, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the practice of triple talaq was invalid. In 2019, the Centre brought a law punishing Muslim husbands pronouncing triple talaq with a jail term. The Narendra Modi government has been accused of using Muslim women as tropes to further its politics. On one hand, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders talk about the need for a Uniform Civil Code to help Muslim women. On the other, girls and women in hijab cannot be allowed inside schools and colleges in Karnataka. Also read: Indian Muslims must face the truth—Muslim countries don't care about them Muslim women & majoritarian politics Muslim women cannot be immune to majoritarian policies and rising hate crimes. While reform in family law is overdue, women need to be supported in areas such as education, jobs, health and housing. They need safety, security and a life with dignity and freedoms. Women and children are the worst affected when homes are razed during riots or when bulldozers are deployed. It is ironic that no government could protect the rights of Muslim women since Independence, despite constitutional obligations. Only men with overtly religious identities were perceived as leaders. The Shah Bano episode remains a shameful chapter in our history. It seems Indian Muslim women are obligated to live within predefined boundaries demarcated by conservative clergy – which are occasionally readjusted by the dominant politics of the day. In 1986, the Congress government quashed the maintenance given to Shah Bano by the court in 1985 to ostensibly uphold secularism. They surrendered to the patriarchal forces for fear of losing votes. Between 1986 and now, the opportunity for reforming personal laws has not arisen. This speaks volumes about the stranglehold of patriarchy over our polity. Meanwhile, women continue to suffer from unilateral divorces, and archaic practices such as halala, muta marriages, polygamy, denial of guardianship of children, and denial of a fair share in property. Our petition in the Supreme Court listed verses from the Quran, highlighting how Allah created man and woman as equals. In reality, misogynistic interpretations and misinterpretations abound. The unequal status of Muslim women is one of the key enigmas for our secular democracy. By contrast, the Muslim woman herself shows exemplary behaviour. She knows her rights and duties as a Muslim and as a citizen in a democracy. She demands to be an equal Muslim and an equal citizen at once. I have routinely heard women survivors of the 2002 Gujarat riots saying that they want justice and not charity. Women fighting against triple talaq equipped themselves with Quranic teachings as well as knowledge of constitutional safeguards. They saw no contradiction in demanding justice from both sources. Women fighting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) invoked constitutional values of equality, secularism, and non-discrimination as they sat on dharnas with the tricolour in their hands. However, it suited the conservatives to support this women-led agitation, unlike the one against triple talaq. Women can be supported as long as they protest against state institutions and do not challenge the patriarchal status quo within the home and family. Some liberals consider Muslim women's demand for equal rights as inappropriate in times of Hindutva politics. But for women seeking justice within their lifetime, there is nothing called the correct time. Shayara Bano, Aafreen Rehman, Ishrat Jahan, Atiya Sabri, and Gulshan Parveen – all petitioners against triple talaq are living feminine beings. As are the women in Heart Lamp. Zakia Soman is a women's rights activist, columnist, and the co-founder of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. Her X handle is @zakiasomanbmma. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Abu Salem told to approach SC for clarity on remission in 1993 blasts case
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed gangster Abu Salem to approach the Supreme Court for clarification on whether he is entitled to remission while serving a life sentence in two Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Mumbai : Underworld don Abu Salem walks out of the Sessions Court after a hearing in Mumbai on Wednesday. PTI Photo by Mitesh Bhuvad (PTI1_18_2012_000148A) (PTI) {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} A division bench of Justice Ajey Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil was hearing Salem's plea seeking early release on the grounds that he would complete 25 years of imprisonment by March 31, 2025. Salem argued that his release was mandated under the terms of his 2005 extradition from Portugal, in which the Indian government had given a solemn assurance to Portuguese authorities that he would not be sentenced to death or imprisoned for more than 25 years. {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} The confusion stems from the fact that Salem was arrested in one case on October 11, 2005, and in another on October 24, 2005. He was later convicted in both cases on February 25, 2015, and September 7, 2017, respectively. In July 2024, he had moved a special TADA court seeking a tentative date of release, but the court declined to consider remission, citing the grave nature of the offences. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} In July 2022, while deciding Salem's appeals against convictions in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that Salem's sentence must be computed from October 12, 2005, the date of his arrest, and that he was entitled to release upon completing 25 years in custody. The apex court also stated that the Centre would be bound to advise the President under Article 72 of the Constitution once this term was completed. {{/usCountry}} Read More {{^usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} On Monday, however, additional solicitor general Anil Singh contended that Salem was conflating separate conviction periods to claim that he had already completed 24 years and nine months of detention by the time he approached the TADA court. Singh submitted that, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs' calculation, Salem had only completed 19 years, five months, and 21 days of imprisonment. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} Salem's counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, insisted that both sentences were running concurrently and, taking into account his pre-trial custody, time served, and jail-earned remission, Salem had effectively completed 25 years on March 31, 2025. 'They are not considering my jail-earned remission,' Malhotra told the court. Remission can be granted on various grounds, including good behaviour and completion of a portion of the sentence. However, the high court pointed out that the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling made no mention of remission. 'Do you want us to say something that the Supreme Court has not said?' the bench asked. 'This clarification needs to come from the Supreme Court,' it added. The bench admitted Salem's petition but declined interim relief, stating that it would be heard in due course. {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}} {{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
