Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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