Saturday, October 15, 2016
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
If no response by dialing 100 or any other such emergency helpline numbers, the Court is the best recourse now..
The High Court of Delhi recently on 10th May 2016, issued notices to the Centre, Delhi government and Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, seeking explanation over the malfunctioning of Delhi Police’s helpline number 100. “It is a serious issue. ‘Dial 100’ is meant for public and if it is not answered in emergency, what more we can expect?” a bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath was quoted as saying and adding further as follows too, "If there was no answer to a call made by a judge, what would happen when a common man dials it in emergency", said the the Delhi High Court today while expressing concern over the "poor" response on the police emergency helpline number, '100'." It seems that If no response is made now by dialing 100 or any other such emergency helpline numbers, the Court is the best recourse now, as happened even suo moto in aforesaid case of Delhi High Court..
Monday, May 2, 2016
"Capitation Fee is illegal and just not permissible. " : SC while defining obligation of the State in respect of Admission of Students on merits
While adjudicating CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4060 OF 2009 between appellants MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS. ...VERSUS...respondents STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS, the Supreme Court of India has considered Capitation Fee not only illegal but also not permissible in the eyes of laws and emphatically redefined the liability of the State in respect of regulating admissions of the students on merits recently and observed as follows that: "I have no hesitation in upholding the vires of the impugned legislation which empowers the state government to regulate admission process in institutions imparting higher education within the state. In fact, the State being responsible for welfare and development of the people of the State, ought to take necessary steps for welfare of its student community. The field of ‘higher education’ being one such field which directly affects the growth and development of the state, it becomes prerogative of the State to take such steps which further the welfare of the people and in particular pursuing higher education. In fact, the State Government should be the sole entity to lay down the procedure for admission and fee etc. governing the institutions running in that particular state except the centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc. because no one can be a better judge of the requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of a particular state than that state itself. Only the State legislation can create equal level playing field for the students who are coming out from the State Board and other streams. Merit is the cumulative assessment of worth of any individual based on different screening methods. Ideally, there should be one common entrance test conducted by the State both for government colleges and for private unaided educational institutions to ensure efficacy, fairness and public confidence. If private unaided educational institutions are given unfettered right to devise their own admission procedure and fee structure, it would lead to situation where it would impinge upon the “right to equality” of the students who aspire to take admissions in such educational institutions. Common Entrance Test by State or its agency will ensure equal opportunity to all meritorious and suitable candidates and meritorious candidates can be identified for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study, the number of seats and other relevant factors. This would ensure twin objects:- (i) fairness and transparency and (ii) merit apart from preventing mal-administration. Thus, having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit and achieve excellence and curb mal-practices, it would be permissible for the State to regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure. Maintenance and improvement of public health and to provide health care and medical services is the constitutional obligation of the State. To discharge this constitutional obligation, the State must have the doctors with professional excellence and commitment who are ready to give medical advice and services to the public at large. State can satisfactorily discharge its constitutional obligation only when the aspiring students enter into the profession based on merit. Fundamental Rights of private unaided professional colleges must yield to public interest and rights of the students at large: Right to be treated fairly and to get admission through a non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory, fair and transparent procedure is a fundamental right of the students under Article 14. Any law which creates an artificial classification between private unaided institutions and other institutions and creates a disparity in the matter of admission whereby a meritorious student could be denied admission to pursue higher education in a private unaided institution solely because such institution has an unfettered right to choose its own students without following a uniform and transparent admission procedure would be violative of the rights of the aspiring students guaranteed under Article 14. Right of the students to admission in private unaided medical colleges is a right of equality in opportunity. Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. “Profession” has to be distinguished from “business” or a mere “occupation”. While in business, and to a certain extent in occupation, there is a profit motive, profession is primarily a service to society wherein earning is secondary or incidental. A student who gets a professional degree by payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a professional, is likely to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes a bane to society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for professional courses is just not permissible".
Monday, April 4, 2016
Would it not be a discrimination by conferring different forums in different states for trials of certain same Offences under IPC ??
Why does there exist typical difference in respect of forum for trial of certain offences like those under sections 326, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 475, 476, 477 and 477A etc.in IPC from State to State ?? Can it be justified in Laws ? Would it not be a discrimination by conferring different forums in different states for trials of certain same Offences under IPC ?? For Instance, The Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2007, came into force with effect from 22nd February 2008. The amendment interalia changed the forum for the trial of offences punishable under sections 317, 318, 326, 363, 363-A, 365, 377, 392, .393, 394, 409, 435, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 475, 476, 477 and 477A, from that of a Court of Magistrate of First Class to that of a Court of Sessions. Whereas offences punishable under Sections 326, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 475, 476, 477 and 477A etc. are triable by Courts of The Magistrate in Gujarat and other states of India !
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Who is entitled to the Mask of Immunity in this world ? Whether the foxes or the innocent persons ??? The answer if very simply in my views. The Mask of Immunity must for the Weak and not for the Jackals who are leading and chasing for their own gains. Are those able Leaders ever entitled to any mask of Immunity, when they chase all for their own personal gains and goals ? Are those immune Judges ever entitled to any such mask of Immunity, when they enjoy the power without knowing even lines of laws and spirit of Justice ? Are those able celebrities ever entitled to any such Mask of Immunity, when they can buy and enjoy all amenities at the strength of their money and muscles ? Aren't those weak and poor people ever entitled to any Mask of Immunity, when they neither even enjoy peace nor a single piece of bread and butter in a day breading? Think well before re-organizing our social frame...and Think well again to consider whether providing any such Mask of Immunity to the unqualified persons are not legal and social discriminating activities ? KARTIKEY SHROFF Advocate (Gujarat High Court)
Popular Posts on our Law Office Blogs
" If the land owners are not paid and compensated within two years after the declaration of the acquisition of the proposed land, the w...
While adjudicating **Pinakin Rawal v/s State of Gujarat CR.APPEAL NO.811/2004]****the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its landmark...
Powered by www.kartikey.com ::::: A Law Office of India, pioneering the online concept of free legal aid and laws consultation through E-L...
Before passing Order of detention under PASA act, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the “public order”While applying the ratio, laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court, in the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Su...
Vidhya Sahayak for teachers, Lok Rakshak for police and Gram Mitra in rural administration are "Gujarat State Sponsored Financial Exploitation"A division bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala, has observed las...
On the eve of Dipavali...it is a rising of a new dawn...with a hope of a happy and prosperous New year, We extend our cordial wishes to all ...
Recently, the Supreme Court of India has pronounced a landmark judgment, while adjudicating and dismissing writ petition lodged by Bar Coun...
While exercising Criminal Appellant Jurisdiction in the matters of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2013,moved by appellants Mr. Surender Kaushik a...
Recently yesterday, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has reconfirmed the Rules and Laws about the Admissions of a party while adjudicatin...
Would it not be a discrimination by conferring different forums in different states for trials of certain same Offences under IPC ??Why does there exist typical difference in respect of forum for trial of certain offences like those under sections 326, 409, 466, 467, 468,...
Law Blog Archive
- October (1)
- September (6)
- August (7)
- July (8)
- June (4)
- May (7)
- April (8)
- March (9)
- February (9)
- January (6)
- December (9)
- November (4)
- October (3)
- September (5)
- August (11)
- July (2)
- June (1)
- February (2)