first_imgNews UpdatesInterference In Academic Matters Would Amount To Judicial Over-Reach & Stepping Into Domain Of Other Organs Of State: Bombay High Court Sparsh Upadhyay26 Jan 2021 9:17 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) last week disposed of a plea which sought a direction upon the respondents (UOI and others) to spread awareness of the contents of the Constitution of India, the Right to Information Act and the Consumer Protection Act among the masses. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge was hearing the plea filed by one…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) last week disposed of a plea which sought a direction upon the respondents (UOI and others) to spread awareness of the contents of the Constitution of India, the Right to Information Act and the Consumer Protection Act among the masses. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge was hearing the plea filed by one Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale who sought inclusion of above-mentioned laws as compulsory subjects of education at high level of studies, i.e., Undergraduate and Post-Graduate courses. Interestingly, the bench, in its order, quoted the Foreword (penned by former Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud) to Justice K. K. Mathew’s book ‘Democracy, Equality and Freedom’ (edited by Dr. Upendra Baxi) The Court noted that his Lordship has expressed that “in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable exceptions, lay plausible claim of legal scholarship.” The Bench further said, “We certainly are not exceptions and, therefore, would never dream of claiming legal or any other scholarship. Why we say so is because of the nature of concern expressed in this PIL petition.” The Court underlined that Judges have to primarily don the hat of an adjudicator and having regard to the manifold activities in relation to the administrative work, Judges also don other hats. Significantly, the Court said, “An attempt is made by the petitioner by presenting this Public Interest Litigation to make us don the hat of an academician too and interference in academic matters, a field of activity where we have little or no expertise. There could be a judicial over-reach and stepping into the domain of the other organs of the State, if we were to entertain the prayers in this PIL petition.” Lastly, the Court said that the matter must be left to the discretion of the experts in the educational field and the petitioner was granted leave to pursue his remedy before such authorities.Click Here To Download Order/JudgmentRead Order/JudgmentNext Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *