The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere in the order passed by Delhi High Court division bench which had in turn declined to stay the order of Single Judge which had quashed the government notification asking private unaided schools not to charge annual, development fees considering that they have such far reaching financial implications upon the private unaided schools of NCT of Delhi.

The three-judge bench led by Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose stated that, “Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the High court wherein it has made clear that the appeal before the roster bench is pending. Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition is not an expression of the opinion on the correctness of the view expressed by the High court or the contentious views before us”

Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate who is also the President of SCBA appeared on behalf Directorate of Education, Government of NCT and argued that the Judgement Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) SCC Online SC 359 is not maintainable herein. He highlighted following grounds in regard with the concerned judgment in High Court as well-

– That the decision of the Supreme Court, in that case, to overturn the directions of the Rajasthan High Court came after it had noticed that the affected schools had already been partially re-opened for the students of Classes IX to XII which merited the collection of applicable fees. He submits that in the present case, neither have these schools seen any kind of re-opening, nor are they concerned with the tuition fee – the matter pertains to Annual Charges and Development Fee.

– That the decision of the Supreme Court in the Rajasthan Judgement was made in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – which power was not available with the learned Single Judge while passing the challenged judgment. He, therefore, argued that the judgment is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

– That there were enough funds available with the schools to bear the burden of any development charges or recurring charges payable by them, which may possibly have been reduced after the schools had closed on account of the pandemic with effect from March 2021.

Senior Counsel, Shyam Divan appeared on behalf of “Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools” and submitted that the Directorate of Education had no power to interject or interfere in private contracts executed between the parents of the students and the schools, by directing the private, unaided schools to indefinitely postpone collection of Annual Charges and Development Fee.

The Delhi High court Single Judge had held that, “No doubt, the statute vests the Directorate with supervisory power to ensure that these private schools, chosen by students and their parents out of their own volition for the purpose of admission, do not indulge in commercialization and profiteering, however this right is salutary in nature and does not give any license to the Directorate to pass directions that it perceives would be in public interest, without any basis therefore.”

The High Court quashed the circulars issued by Directorate of Education of Delhi Government forbidding and postponing the collection of annual and development fees by calling it illegal and ultra vires the power of Directorate of Education stipulated under DSE acts and rules.

Further the High Court observed that, “The managements of these unaided, private schools in the city, which do not receive any aid from the GNCTD and are solely dependent on the fee collected by them, would also need funds to sustain their operations and premises and continue imparting education online. Given the terrible exigencies of the pandemic, we have been forced to embrace new models for our institutions and virtual classes are our sole way of ensuring that the nation’s children are being educated.”

The Delhi High Court had listed the applications before the roster bench on 12th July 2021.

The Directorate of Education, Government of NCT had filed Letters Patent appeal in Delhi High court against the order of Single Judge which was filed by Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools that comprises of 450 private unaided schools in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi seeking quashing of the circulars issued by Directorate of Education, GNCTD by holding that the direction to postpone the collection of Annual Charges and Development Fee from students until normal functioning of schools is resumed which is illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Directorate of Education under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973and the Delhi School Education Rules,1973.

The Single Judge while passing the order referred the judgement passed by Supreme Court recently in another case titled Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) in which the Apex Court had passed following directions in regard with the fees-

1.   The School Management of the concerned private unaided school shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of 2016 for the academic year2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15 percent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-21.

2.   The amount so payable by the concerned students be paid in six equal monthly instalments before 05.08.2021 as noted in our order dated08.02.2021.

3.   Regardless of the above, it will be open to the appellants (concerned schools) to give further concession to their students or to evolve a different pattern for giving concession over and above those noted in clauses (i) and (ii) above

4.   The school Management shall not debar any student from attending either online classes or physical classes on account of non-payment of fees, arrears/ outstanding fees including the instalments, referred to above, and shall not withhold the results of the examinations of any student on that account.

Read Also: Cremation of Covid dead: SC acknowledges problem, asks petitioner to approach NHRC

5.   If any individual request is made by the parent/ward finding it difficult to remit annual fees for the academic year 2020-21 in the above terms, the school Management to consider such representation on case-to-case basis sympathetically.

6.   The above arrangement will not affect collection of fees for the academic year 2021-22,as is payable by students of the concerned school as and when it becomes due and payable.

7.   The school Management shall not withhold the name of any student/candidate for the ensuring Board examinations for Classes X and XII on the ground of non-payment of fee/arrears for the academic year 2020-21, if any, on obtaining undertaking of the concerned parents/students.

The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing on an appeal filed by a convict sentenced to life imprisonment almost 20 years back, challenging the judgment of the high court which had upheld life imprisonment and directed him to surrender along with other co-convicts in the year 2019. 

The appellant had surrendered and challenged the Judgment of High Court in the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide its previous order dated Jan 5, 2021, had granted interim bail taken into consideration the health condition of the appellant. The Top Court time to time had extended the interim bail order as per the medical report of the appellant. 

His plea was taken up and heard by vacation bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The court has asked the state to why the medical records of Shyam Lal has not been verified. The Court has directed the State to file report of medical condition of the petitioner in compliance of its previous order dated 08/03/2021, by Monday 17/05/2021, and list the matter for hearing on 18.05.2021. 

The interim bail of Shyam Lal was extended by 2 months on the expiry of his interim bail passed by the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R.Subhash Reddy on 8.03.2021, which also directed the state to verify medical condition of petitioner about 2 weeks prior to expiry of such period so that the court can take a view that bail to be continue or not.

On 05/01/2021, a three-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Hrishikesh Roy enlarged Shyam Lal Singh on interim bail for period of 8 weeks on grounds of medical condition, in support of medical documents as verified by jail authorities as well.

The appeal before the Court was filed by Mahinder Singh and Shyam lal who have challenged the judgment dated 18.09.2019 of Delhi High court wherein the order on conviction and sentence passed by trial court, was sustained by the High court. The trial court ordered that all such sentences will run concurrently vide orders dated 11.10.2001 and 31.10.2001.

Shyam Lal along with other co-accused was convicted for offence u/s 323/34 IPC & 452/302/34 IPC and awarded life imprisonment u/s 302/34 IPC, one year sentence under section 452/34 IPC, and fine under section 323/34 IPC. Few other were acquitted by the trial Court. 

Facts, as noted by trial court are reproduced below –

The complainant party belongs to one of the caste. The accused party belongs to the other caste (Julaha).. Rati Ram (the deceased in this case) and one Abhay Ram filed a civil suit on 4.12.87 against some of the accused. The prosecution case is that this vacant plot of land was the bone of contention between the two castes.” The appellants namely Chanchal, Mahender, Shyamlal and Gurcharan, armed with lathis, were seen by Sri Kishan going towards the house of Rati Ram and who also heard them saying Rati Ram was Sri Kishan’s uncle. Sri Kishan tried to stop them but the appellants assaulted him with lathis and went towards the house of Rati Ram.

Number of Prosecution witnesses was 33 in total. There was only one independent witness, who turned hostile later on. Kishan(PW1) , Brahm Swaroop(PW-9) and Phool Kaur(PW-11) are related and interested witnesses , while Geeta(PW-12) and Sevananda(PW-4) are planted witnesses.

The MLCs(Medico Legal Report) of injured witnesses suggest injuries are simple in nature which has been caused by blunt weapon.

Read Also: Chief Justice NV Ramana launches mobile app for journalists

The 2 judges bench comprised of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri and Justice Siddharth Mridul of High court of Delhi observed that this was not a case where offence committed under section 302 , should be converted to 304 part 2 IPC and also gave finding while upholding judgment of trial court is that The Appellants first caused injury to Sri Kishan when he tried to stop them while they were going to the house of the deceased. The appellants were armed with lathis which indicate that they had come to the spot with a pre-meditated mind. Then they had gone to the house of the deceased where they caused injuries to his son and wife. As the deceased tried to escape, they chased him and then assaulted him with lathis. From the records, it stands proved that the appellants had the intention to cause death of Rati Ram and with a premeditated plan assaulted him resulting in his death. The case, therefore, clearly falls in clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Manipur government over a petition challenging an order passed by the human rights body with relation to the alleged extra judicial killing of two persons in Manipur.

A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh sought response from the NHRC and Manipur government over the petition filed by Suhas Chakma, the director of the National Campaign for Prevention of Torture, and has now kept the matter for further hearing on April 22. The petition was filed through Advocate Nitesh Kumar Singh of Phoenix Law Firm.

The plea challenges an order passed by the NHRC dated September 8, 2020 alleging that the human rights body has “failed to discharge its basic function as a statutory body established for better protection of human rights.” 

The plea claims that the NHRC wrongly directed the next of kin (NoK) of victims of killing in extrajudicial manner to approach the competent Court of Law for claiming the relief as was granted by it vide order dated 05/03/2020.

Chakma had in 2009 filed a complaint with NHRC against alleged extrajudicial killing of one Ningthoujam Anand Singh S/o late N. Lala Singh and Palungbam Kunjabihari alias Bose alias Abung by a combined force of Manipur Police commandos and 16th Assam Rifles at Kanglatombi Makhan road in Imphal, Manipur on 21 January 2009 seeking judicial inquiry against the alleged extrajudicial killing, providing legal aid to the family of the deceased and compensation etc. 

After hearing the matter for over ten years, the NHRC in February 2019 held that deceased Ningthoujam Ananda Singh and Palungbam Kunabihar were killed by the combined force of Manipur Police Commandos and 16th Assam Rifles in an extra judicial manner and their right to life was violated by the police following which a notice was issued to the Manipur government asking as to why an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each monetary compensation be not recommended to be paid to the Next of Kin (NoK) of the two deceased persons. 

Also Read: Balwant Singh Rajoana mercy plea: Supreme Court grants six more weeks to Centre to decide

In March 2020, NHRC rejected the contention ofthe State that the encounter was real and directed the State of Manipur to submit the compliance report with respect to the recommendation for payment of relief along with proof of payment within six weeks positively.

“Later, on September 8, 2020, the NHRC unreasonably and unjustifiably, closed the case by stating that it will be open to the NoK of the deceased to approach the competent court of law for claiming the relief of Rs. 5,00,000 each,” the petitioner said while adding that being aggrieved of the said order he approached the Delhi High Court. 

New Delhi (ILNS): A contempt petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court against the Delhi government for not taking any action, as ordered by the court, against illegal online health service aggregators operating in Delhi in violation of the applicable law.

The plea has been filed by Dr Rohit Jain who has been filing RTI applications after the order of the high court seeking information about the action taken report and no satisfaction has been received.

The petition states: “Many online health aggregators are freely doing their illegal business in utter violation of law/rules/regulations without fear of being caught under the law by the regulating agencies.”

The Delhi High Court had directed: “The concerned respondent authorities to initiate action, in accordance with law, against any illegal online health service aggregators operating in Delhi in violation of the applicable law, including the clinical establishment (Registration and Regulations) Act, 2010, if applicable, or in violation of any rules, regulations or government policies applicable to the facts of the case. Action will be initiated in accordance with law against such violators of the law as expeditiously as possible and practicable, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties”.

The plea further stated: “The contemnors/respondents has been playing with precious lives of the innocent people by promoting unqualified, unregistered medical practitioners to sign the pathological report and exposing the common people to the mercy of untrained and highly incompetent medical/pathological professional.”

New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court order directing more than 2,300 under-trials to surrender, after the Delhi High Court ended the arrangement by which interim bail of prisoners was automatically extended to prevent overcrowding of prisons during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The high court had directed 2,318 under-trials involved in heinous offences to surrender in a phased manner latest by November 13.

A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi issued notice to the Delhi government and others on a petition challenging the High Court order and sought reply.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the National Forum for Prison Reforms (NFPR) against the Delhi High Court order.

The High Court had ordered that its order to grant bail before the lockdown and during this period would not remain in effect after October 31. Senior Counsel Colin Gonzalves and Ajay Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the case.

In its petition before the apex court, the NFPR stated that the high court directive is totally against the spirit of the order dated March 23, 2020. In this, the high court had ignored eight recommendations of the high powered committee set up by the Supreme Court.

The apex bench said: “There shall be stay of directions (i), (ii) and (iv) given in paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated October 20 passed by the High Court.”

The stay would operate till November 26 when the bench will hear the prison authorities and Delhi government on the petition.

Read the order here;