Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Bombay High Court Upholds Excluded Private School Students from Participating In The Scholarship Examination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, the eligibility criteria for the National Means cum Merit Scholarship Scheme was upheld. The court emphasized its limited role in reviewing government policies and reiterated the importance of adhering to established legal principles.

The case, brought forth by Sri Sri Ravishankar Vidya Mandir, a recognized unaided private school, challenged the eligibility criteria that excluded private school students from participating in the scholarship examination. The petitioner argued that this exclusion was arbitrary and unreasonable, asserting that students in private schools could also come from financially weaker backgrounds.

The judgment, delivered by Justices MANGESH S. PATIL and SHAILESH P. BRAHME, underscored the government's objective of providing scholarships to economically disadvantaged students to prevent dropouts at the eighth-grade level. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but maintained that the government's decision-making in policy matters should be respected.

The observation from the judgment stated, "The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires, and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."

While recognizing the genuine concerns raised by the petitioner, the court emphasized that policy matters are within the domain of the government and should not be interfered with unless they violate statutory provisions, the Constitution, or the principles of reasonableness.

High Court upheld the eligibility criteria for the scholarship scheme, reaffirming its limited role in reviewing government policies and decisions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the separation of powers and the need to respect the government's prerogative in formulating policies that align with their objectives and resources.

Date of Decision: 08.09.2023

Sri Sri Ravishankar vs Government of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Sri_Sri_Ravishankar_Vidya_Mandir_vs_Government_Of_India_8_September_2023_BombHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News