Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Article 30 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harapal Singh vs Devinder Sing & Anotherwithcriminal ... on 9 July, 1997
In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Haripal Singh v. Devinder Singh (1997 (6) SCC 660). The Apex Court highlighted the bane of campus politics with resulted in the death of a student studying in the final year M.A. Economics. While dealing with the case, Apex Court held as follows:
M.H. Devendrappa vs The Karnataka State Small ... on 17 February, 1998
14. We are of the view, guideline (9) banning political activities within the campus and forbidding the students from organizing or attending meetings other than the official ones within the campus is not designed to prohibit any of the fundamental rights of the students guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c). It is not a total prohibition of any fundamental right, but only a reasonable restriction confined to college campus and the code of conduct cannot be flouted in the name of any other freedom or the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)or 19(1)(c). Once students are admitted to an educational institution they are bound by the code of conduct laid down by the educational institutions through the prospectus or college calendar and it is implicit that they should observe the code of conduct necessary for the proper administration and management of the institution. Restrictions are only reasonable and designed to promote discipline in the educational institution so that the objectives of the educational institution could be achieved and wisdom of laying down those restrictions cannot be challenged by the student after getting admitted to the educational institution. The right to admission not being absolute there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in education. Rules are made for inter discipline in the educational institution which was made applicable equally to management, teaching staff, non-teaching staff and the students community as a whole for its proper functioning and maintaining discipline. Clause 9 of the General Discipline laid down by St. Thomas College, Palai does not violate Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and therefore liable to be upheld. In other words, those restrictions are for the proper functioning of the educational institution itself.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 29 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002 (8) SCC 481) the Apex Court held that the establishment and running of an educational institutions were a large number of persons are employed as teachers or administrative staff, and an activity is carried on that results in the imparting of knowledge to the students, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation, even if there is no element of profit generation. The Court further held that the right to establish and maintain educational institutions may also be sourced to Article 26(a), which grants, in positive terms, the right to every religious denomination or any section thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, subject to public order, morality and health. Religious denominations or sections thereof, which do not fall within the special categories carved out in Articles 29(1) and 30(1), have the right to establish and maintain religious and educational institutions. For maintaining excellence in education it is important that the teaching faculty and members of staff of the educational institution should perform their duties in the manner in which it is required to be done according to the rules and instructions. For giving effect to the objectives for which the educational institution was established either by minority community or by majority community, they could lay down their own rules and regulations governing the teachers, non-teaching staff as well as students. For giving effect to Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1), educational institutions can lay down their own code of conduct to be made applicable to the management, teaching staff, non-teaching staff and the students. Only thing is that such restrictions should be reasonable so as to give effect to the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 19(1)(g), 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. While examining the reasonableness of those restrictions there must be direct and proximate nexus between the restrictions imposed and the objects sought to be achieved. Reasonableness of the restrictions is to be determined in an objective manner from the stand point of the management and the students, teaching and non-teaching staff etc. as a whole and the institution in general and not from the stand point of the interest of the person upon whom restrictions are imposed or upon abstract consideration.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.M. Unni Raja And Ors. vs Principal, Medical College, ... on 28 February, 1983
9. Authority and importance given to the Principal of an educational institution has been highlighted by the Supreme Court and this Court in various decisions. A Division Bench of this Court Unni Raja v. Principal, Medical College (1983 (2) ILR Kerala 754) held that the head of an education like the Principal occupies a preeminent position and at the same time, now a days an unenviable one. Principal is answerable to the authorities and to the public for the discipline in the institution. Time was when his authority was never questioned but with passage of time, when educational institutions became the arena of activities by political and political forces, there was a deterioration of values cherished for long and an invasion on his powers. Hence it is necessary to unto him what is his. The Division Bench concluded that the essence of the matter is the Head of the Institution should in law be presumed to possess an inherent right of such acts as are necessary in his opinion to maintain discipline in the institution. This right is incapable of an exhaustive identification. To limit it within defined confines would be to erode into his authority and fetter his discretion. To deny this right to the Head of the Institution would be to sound the death knell of discipline in the institution which is already a casualty, by the combination of diverse forces, from within and from without.