Here are 20 landmark judgments on the right to education before 2002:
Supreme Court
St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974): The Supreme Court held that private educational institutions are entitled to autonomy in their internal administration, but they must conform to the regulations prescribed by the government.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): The Supreme Court held that private unaided educational institutions have the right to fix their own fee structure, subject to the condition that they do not charge capitation fees.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is implicit in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
R. Gandhi v. Union of India (1993): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, emphasizing the right to live with dignity under Article 21.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and ensure the protection of human rights under Article 21.
High Courts
State of Gujarat v. Gurbachan Singh (1976): The Gujarat High Court dealt with the issue of preventive detention and the applicability of Article 22. The court held that detainees must be informed of the grounds of detention and must be given a fair opportunity to make representations against their detention.
State of Maharashtra v. Narasu Appa Mali (1959): The Bombay High Court held that preventive detention laws could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, including Article 20.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venkata Reddy (1963): The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) does not apply to cases where the same act constitutes multiple offenses under different statutes.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1976): The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of discrimination and the application of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 20. The court ruled that the classification for the purpose of trial under special laws must be reasonable and must not violate the right to equality.
State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal K. Patel (1967): The Gujarat High Court held that the principle of ex-post facto laws under Article 20(1) applies only to criminal laws and not to civil laws. This case distinguished between criminal and civil liabilities in the context of retrospective application of laws.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Rajasthan High Court held that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court held that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996): The Supreme Court held that the right to shelter is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994): The Supreme Court held that the right to bail is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
These cases reflect the judiciary's efforts to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and to adapt to the changing needs of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment