Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Importance of language in primary education of children Judgment

The vital question involved in this petition has a far-reaching significance on the development of the children in our country who are the future adults. The primary school years of a child is an important phase in a child’s education. Besides, it moulds the thinking process and tutors on the communication skills. Thus, primary education lays the groundwork for future learning and success. Succinctly, the skills and values that primary education instills are no less than foundational and serve as bases for all future learning. Likewise, the importance of a language cannot be understated; we must recollect that reorganization of States was primarily based on language. Further, the issue involved in this case concerns about the fundamental rights of not only the present generation but also the generations yet to be born.
36) Considering the constitutional importance of these questions, we are of the firm view that all these matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench. 

Supreme Court of India
State Of Karnataka & Anr. vs Asstd.Mang.Of Gov.Rec.Prim.& ... on 5 July, 2013

Citation;(2013) 11 SCC 72
Print Page

Denial of right to parent/child to choose medium of instruction in school, whether valid?

State of Karnataka v. Associated Mgmts. of Eng. Medium Primary & Secondary
Schools, (2013) 11 SCC 72
Constitution of India
Arts. 21-A, 21, 51-A(k), 350-A, 14, 19, 29, 30, 39(f), 141 and 137 - Right to primary education - Medium of instruction in
Classes 1 to 4 - State of Karnataka restricting medium of instruction to either mother tongue or Kannada - Denial of right
to parent/child to choose medium of instruction in school, whether valid and justified - Matter referred to Constitution
Bench - Other issues incidental thereto, involved - Considering the constitutional importance of the issues raised and
also considering that the matter had been touched upon by another Bench of similar strength (i.e. two-Judge Bench), the
Registry directed to place matter before the Chief Justicefor being considered for reference to a Constitution Bench,
Print Page

Rights of medical education Vs. Rights of minority institution

 So far as the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the provisions of Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 are concerned, in my opinion, none of the rights guaranteed under the aforestated Articles would be violated by permitting the NEET. It is always open to the petitioners to select a student subject to his being qualified by passing the examination conducted by the highest professional body. This is to assure that the students who are to undergo the professional training are suitable for the same. Regulations relating to admission of the students i.e. admitting eligible, deserving and bright students would ultimately bring reputation to the educational institutes. I fail to understand as to why the petitioners are keen to admit undeserving or ineligible students when eligible and suitable students are available. I am sure that even a scrupulous religious person or an educational institution would not like to have physicians or dentists passing through its institution to be substandard so as to bring down reputation of the profession or the college in which such a substandard professional was educated. Minorities - be it religious or linguistic, can impart training to a student who is found worthy to be given education in the field of medicine or dentistry by the professional apex body. In my opinion, the Regulations and the NEET would not curtail or adversely affect any of the rights of such minorities as apprehended by the petitioners. On the contrary, standard quality of input would reasonably assure them of sterling quality of the final output of the physicians or dentists, who pass out through their educational institutions.
Supreme Court of India
Christian Medical College ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 July, 2013

Bench: A R Dave, V Sen, A Kabir
Citation;(2014) 2 SCC 305
Print Page

Rights to administer minority institution do not include right to maladminister

Christian Medical College v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 305
Constitution of India
Arts. 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21, 25, 26(a), 29 & 30 and Sch. VII List I Entry 66 & List III Entries 25 & 26 - Autonomy available to
unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions, particularly in field of medicine/dentistry - Scope of - Whether
such institutions have an unfettered right to conduct examinations for admitting students - Whether Triple Test laid down
in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537 that admission procedure must be (1) Fair, (2) Transparent, and (3) Non-exploitative,
was being violated with impunity by gross malpractices of charging huge amounts of capitation fees or demanding huge
donation amounts in the garb of exercising autonomy i.e. medical and dental seats were being `sold' to the highest bidder

Print Page