Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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