Independent Thought vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
D.N.PATEL, C.HARI SHANKAR
Independent Thought – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Table of Content
1. public interest litigation introduction and prayers. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims about government and private school standards. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondent's defense of section 18. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis of sections 18 and 19 compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. details on steps for quality education monitoring. (Para 11)
6. rationale for valid classification under law. (Para 12 , 13)
7. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)--This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

"a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or such other similar writ, in the nature of declaration, declaring that the expression "other than a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or the local authority" in Section 18 (1) of the RTE Act of 2009 is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down;

b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or a writ of declaration that there shall be an independent body set up to regulate and monitor quality norms and standards in all schools that are covered under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTD.N.PATEL, C.HARI SHANKARIndependent Thought – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
D.N.PATEL, C.HARI SHANKAR
Independent Thought – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent