MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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