IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5939 of 2023 and C.M. No. 23285 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Legal Studies - Education Rights - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Article 14, 21, 21-A - All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan And Others, (2009) 11 SCC 726 - Maharashtra States Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education V. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 - Basaviah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 - Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, [(2001) 5 SCC 486] - Medical Council of India v. Sarang, [(2001) 8 SCC 427] - B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah, [(2008) 14 SCC 306: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 148] - Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, [(2008) 9 SCC 284: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] - O.W.P 903/2011 titled DCM Public School vs. State of J&K & Ors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking to introduce legal studies as a compulsory subject in schools, citing violation of fundamental rights and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere, stating that the framing of a course is the domain of expert bodies and that the CBSE is competent to design the curriculum and fix the number of teachers required to teach the subjects.
Issues: Violation of fundamental rights, introduction of legal studies as a compulsory subject in schools.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts should not substitute their views for those of expert bodies in academic matters. The framing of a course and curriculum falls within the domain of expert bodies.
Final Decision: The admission of the PIL was declined, and the petitioner was advised to submit a representation to the CBSE, if so advised.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)--The Petitioner before this Court has filed the present Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stating that they are much involved in the rights pertaining to education of the children of this country and the present Writ Petition has been filed for the benefit of crores of students studying or desirous of studying in schools of Directorate of Education Delhi, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Municipal Corporation in Delhi and other bodies.
2. The Petitioner has further stated that after further research on this topic, he came across an article published in the Times of India dated 09 April 2013 that Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has decided to introduce legal studies as a subject in classes XI-XII, as a pilot project in 200 schools in India and abroad. After inquiring about the said publication by filing RTI to the respondent no. 2/CBSE in August, 2022 about the said article the petitioner was informed that no records of 2013 files have been found in the Academic Unit. In August 2022 the petitioner tried to inquire about the CBSE letter whether legal studies is a subject of study in schools and legal study education is being imparted to students by recruitment of law graduate teacher on permanent basis in uniform manner in schools run by Directorate of Education, Delhi. He was informed by the respondents that law is not offered as a subject of study in their schools. During research the petitioner also tried to collect the details of the schools where teaching of legal studies at present was being imparted and he found that legal study is a subject only in 18 private schools.
3. The Petitioner's main grievance is that the subject of Legal Studies and subject of Law should be introduced as a compulsory subject in schools education. The Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"I) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to forthwith offer and introduce law education/legal studies subject compulsorily as elective/optional subjects in all the schools forthwith.
II) Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to forthwith create adequate number of regular posts of Law Graduate Teachers on permanent basis to impart legal studies as per the syllabus of CBSE by framing recruitment rules and recruit at least two Law Graduate teachers in each and every school (One Male and One Female) falling under their jurisdiction, area and control.
III) Pass any other, order, or directions or such further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of students, society and interest of justice, and
IV) Allow the present Public Social Legal Justice Interest Litigation petition, in favour of the petitioners, students and society."
4. The petitioner states that not imparting legal education to students violates their fundamental rights and deprives them of equality and equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 14,21, 21-A of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and fundamental rights of the children.
5. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length and has carefully gone through the documents on record. The Petitioner's prayer is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to introduce Law Education/Legal Studies as compulsory/optional subject in the schools forthwith.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, framing of a course is the sole domain of expert bodies and the Courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies, and to take decisions in the academic matters involving the standards of quality of education.
7. The courses have been designed by experts of the field and the new education policy of Governme
Courts should not substitute their views for those of expert bodies in academic matters.
The court ruled that amendments to CBSE regulations impacting students must be adequately published to be enforceable, reinforcing the principle of legitimate expectation in administrative law.
The retrospective application of policy changes by an authority must respect established rights and expectations of stakeholders, particularly in education, to prevent arbitrary and unjust outcomes.
The appointment of the Director of a legal education institute must comply with the qualifications set by the Bar Council of India's Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rules mandating pass in all subjects in Class XI for promotion to Class XII were found to be mandatory and not discriminatory, thereby uph....
The principle that legitimate expectations in educational policy cannot be arbitrarily overridden, especially in exceptional circumstances.
State regulatory bodies exercising statutory power to prescribe textbooks and curricula for affiliated private schools act within their legal competence and satisfy the requirement of reasonableness ....
Public Interest Litigation must represent genuine public interest, not individual grievances, to be maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the Bar Council of India's functions under Section 7(1)(h) and (i) of the Advocates Act, and the prohibition of offering ce....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.