Permission of govt. required before alienating property of aided schools: HC
The Bench made the observation while allowing an appeal by some teachers of a lower primary school in Manjeri against a single judge's order quashing the government order declining approval of a teacher nominated as manager by the person who purchased the school. The government had rejected approval on the ground that the owner of the property could only be made manager and a third party could not be appointed as the manager. The appellant contended that as owner N. Sidrathul Munthaha had not obtained any previous permission before obtaining title, the entire transaction is void under section 6(3) of the Kerala Education Act.
The Bench observed that before an aided school's property is alienated, it is the mandate of the law that permission shall be obtained from the government or any officer authorised by the government in this regard, and such permission cannot be obtained merely by invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which is only a procedural rule enabling the recording of a change in ownership. The objective behind Section 6 of the Act is to ensure that the property belonging to an aided school is not alienated indiscriminately, jeopardizing the future of the students.
The Bench also directed the government to reconsider the matter afresh under Section 6 of the Act as well as under Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex
The key objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is the protection of children, but over the past few years, courts around the country and rights activists have called for some exemptions. Noticing a trend that adolescents, above 15 years but under 18, in voluntary relationships and having consensual sex were often being persecuted, the courts sought a review. In that backdrop, senior advocate Indira Jaising's written submission to the Supreme Court that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16-18 years must not be criminalised is a welcome move. She was appointed amicus curiae and her submissions are part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Her brief challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent. She said the only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18, is not a form of 'abuse'. Ms. Jaising called for this exception to be read into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. In a 2023 report, the Law Commission had said that it was against changing the age of consent. It advised 'guided judicial discretion' instead, while sentencing in cases that involve children between 16 and 18 years in a voluntary, consensual relationship. Under the POCSO Act and under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the BNS, whoever commits a penetrative sexual assault on a child — who is anyone below 18 years — can face stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and provisions of the IPC and BNS. A 16-year-old is considered a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and hence her consent does not matter. But caveats have to be put in place so that the broad intent of the law is adhered to, as the Madras High Court suggested in 2021, in Vijayalakshmi vs State Rep. The High Court said the age difference in consensual relationships should not be more than five years to ensure that a girl of an impressionable age is not taken advantage of by an older person. Educating adolescents about the law on sexual offences and its consequences is a must too. Criminalising normal adolescent behaviour is not the way to protect against non-consensual, exploitative sexual offences.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
HC issues notice to Delimitation Commission
The Kerala High Court has issued notice to the Delimitation Commission and others concerned in a petition filed by T.K. Ashraf, the chairman of the Kochi Corporation's health standing committee. A Bench of Justice C.S. Dias passed the order in a petition filed by Mr. Ashraf, in which he had mentioned that the names of 31,000 people were missing in Kochi Corporation limits, for the delimitation of wards under the civic agency. Quoting the 2011 Census, he said that there were 6.33 lakh residents in Kochi, but the Delimitation Commission has considered only 6.02 lakh people. In Ward 5, the names of 8,144 people have not been mentioned. As per norms, a ward having 8,000 or more people must be retained, he said, and sought cancellation of the ward's delimitation. The delimitation notification would be subject to the result of the writ petition, the court said.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
MHA refuses to share data on CAA beneficiaries
More than a year after the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 became effective, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has refused to share data on the total number of beneficiaries under the Act. A Bharatiya Janata Party MP from West Bengal told The Hindu that fewer than 100 people in his constituency had received citizenship under the CAA even though the number of intended beneficiaries, mostly belonging to the Matua sect, were around 1 lakh. There are around 2.8 crore people from the Matua and Namasudra communities who stand to benefit from the CAA in the State. The CAA Rules were notified on March 11, 2024 to give citizenship to undocumented members of Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Jain, Buddhist and Christian communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh under the Act that was passed in 2019. Ranaghat MP Jagannath Sarkar told The Hindu that the requirement to submit any one document, which will help trace an applicant's roots to Bangladesh, should be dropped and the cut-off date for applying under CAA should be amended too. The existing cut-off date is December 31, 2014. 'Most people do not have any of the documents sought by the MHA to fulfil citizenship criteria. These people came to India to escape persecution, with barely any belongings. How will they provide documents?' Mr. Sarkar said. Following reports from West Bengal, Schedule 1A of the CAA Rules was tweaked on July 8, 2024, and the list of nine documents to prove that the applicant is a national of Afghanistan or Bangladesh or Pakistan was expanded to include any document issued by the State or the Centre or quasi-judicial authority in India identifying or representing the applicant or their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents as a national of these three countries . Anticipating non-cooperation in Opposition-ruled States, the CAA Rules entrusted Central government officials posted in States, including officials of Directorate of Census, Postal Department, Railways, National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Intelligence Bureau, to process the applications. On April 2, Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai said in the Rajya Sabha that 'thousands were granted citizenship', while responding to Trinamool Congress member Sushmita Dev's remarks that merely 350 people were granted citizenship under the CAA. The Minister did not specify the number. The Act was mostly expected to benefit people in West Bengal and Assam as those who had arrived from Pakistan had entered legally and possessed one of the documents required to acquire citizenship. In West Bengal, most intended beneficiaries already have voter cards and other identity documents. One of the criteria to avail citizenship under the CAA is that the applicant has to declare that he or she is a foreigner. The Pakistani applicants from the six non-Muslim communities would have been eligible under the Citizenship Act, 1955 also after living in India continuously for 12 years. According to Hindu Singh, president, Seemant Lok Sangathan, a group that advocates for the rights of Pakistani minority migrants in India, of the around 8,500 people who applied under the CAA in Rajasthan, 7,250 were granted citizenship in the past one year. On March 10, Assam's Parliamentary Affairs Minister Chandra Mohan Patowary informed the Assembly that two applicants in Assam were granted citizenship under CAA. In Gujarat, at least 373 people had got citizenship via the CAA. While discussing the legislation in Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2019, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that 'lakhs and crores' of people would benefit from the law. However, Director, Intelligence Bureau had deposed before a parliamentary committee in 2018 that around 31,000 people would be the immediate beneficiaries. The MHA has refused to share information on how many people have either applied or had been granted citizenship. The Hindu filed a Right to Information Act (RTI) application in June 2024 and in September 2024, the MHA refused to provide the information. An appeal was also filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC), which hears appeals from applicants who have issues with RTI responses from public authorities of the Union government. The CIC's Chief Commissioner Heeralal Samariya heard The Hindu's case on July 9. The RTI was limited to applications received on the portal, which is run by the Home Ministry as the entire process is online. The Home Ministry's representative, Ram Dayal Meena, did not specifically dispute any of The Hindu's arguments during the hearing, and when asked by the CIC if he wanted to speak, declined to make any oral submissions. A written response reiterated the MHA's earlier refusals, which simply stated that the information was 'not being maintained as desired by you'. 'Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO,' Mr. Samariya wrote in his order. 'The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant.' The decision was arrived at the same day, and was uploaded at a later date.
