The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the Commissioner, Department of Public Instruction, to file an affidavit clarifying how the Department would ensure compliance with its circular on filling the non-RTE quota in private and unaided schools.
The March 12, 2013 circular issued by the Department specifies guidelines on filling up 75 per cent seats (non-RTE quota) in private and unaided schools. The circular bans collection of capitation fee and screening of children for admission. It states that the selection of children should be independent of the educational qualification of the parents.
The Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association (Kusma) and others had challenged the circular terming it illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The petitioners had claimed that the circular snatches the authority of the schools to admit students and violates Article 9(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution.
The counsel for the government, R Om Kumar, submitted that the circular had been issued to ensure transparency in admission procedure and does not infringe on the rights of the petitioners.
He clarified that the schools have been asked to come out with their own guidelines on the basis of their aims and objectives.
Justice B S Patil directed the Commissioner to be present before the Court and submit an affidavit on implementing the circular.
Trial court order set aside
The High Court has set aside a trial court order which had acquitted a driver who had murdered his wife. The court has sentenced him to life, after re-appreciation of evidence.
Hearing an appeal by the State, the division bench comprising Justice Mohan Shantanagowdar and Justice Vaga Suri Apparao set aside the 2008 order of the trial court. The bench observed that “the trial court has erred in its judgement.”
Accepting the submission of the prosecution, the court said, “The prosecution has clearly narrated the incident before the trial court. The accused has not at all elicited anything about the incident. Despite that, the trial court acquitted the accused. The judgement is perverse and erroneous.”
During the hearing, Additional Special Public Prosecutor N S Sampangiramaiah pointed to the trial court order and submitted that the matter needs intervention of the High Court.
He sought that the judgement be set aside and that the accused be sentenced under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian penal Code.
Sampangiramaiah pointed out that the trial court order to release the accused was based only on non-identification of the weapon used for the crime.
Uday, a native of Kodagu, had murdered his wife Soumya with a machete on March 4, 2006, in Peenya, Bangalore and was acquitted when the eyewitness failed to identify the weapon used for the crime.
