Law

In a significant development on education rights, the Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Centre, all States, and Union Territories on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking effective implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took cognisance of the plea filed by petitioner Haripriya Patel, who has urged the court to ensure that the Right to Education (RTE) mandate is uniformly enforced across the country.

The RTE Act guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years, making it a fundamental obligation for governments at both central and state levels. However, the PIL argues that its implementation remains inconsistent across regions, affecting access and quality of schooling.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed, “We are issuing notices. We would like to examine the issue,” indicating that the court intends to closely scrutinise the matter before proceeding further.

In addition to the RTE Act, the petitioner has also sought directions for the implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 across all States and Union Territories. The plea highlights the need for a cohesive national approach to education reforms, especially in ensuring equitable access and standardisation.

The case brings renewed attention to gaps in India’s school education system, particularly in areas such as infrastructure, teacher availability, and policy execution. While the RTE Act has significantly expanded enrolment over the years, concerns remain regarding its on-ground enforcement.

With notices now issued, responses from governments are expected to shed light on the current status of implementation and the challenges faced in delivering universal elementary education.

Forensic reports often enter courtrooms with an aura of scientific certainty. When a Chemical Examiner or Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) concludes that blood matches, DNA aligns, or a substance supports the prosecution’s theory, there is a natural tendency to treat such findings as conclusive. However, the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Najeeruddin v. State of U.P. reminds courts that this approach can be legally unsafe.

The judgment highlights a critical distinction that every Sessions Judge must maintain: admissibility, reliability, and fairness are separate legal requirements. A forensic report may be admissible under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows reports of government scientific experts to be read in evidence without formal proof. But admissibility alone does not guarantee that the report is reliable or that it can be fairly used against the accused.

The case arose from a serious criminal prosecution involving multiple murders and allegations of sexual assault. The trial court had relied heavily on DNA and fingerprint reports to convict the accused and impose the death penalty. However, the High Court found a crucial flaw: these forensic reports were introduced after the accused had already been examined under Section 313 CrPC and were never put to him thereafter. This denied the accused the opportunity to explain or challenge the most incriminating evidence against him.

The Court held that this omission caused real prejudice and violated the principles of a fair trial. Section 313 CrPC is not a mere procedural formality—it is a substantive safeguard that ensures the accused can respond to every incriminating circumstance. If a forensic report is to be relied upon, its contents must be specifically put to the accused. If the report arrives later, the accused must be recalled and re-examined.

Another key lesson from the judgment is that admissibility does not equal evidentiary value. A forensic laboratory can only analyse the sample it receives; it cannot establish whether the sample was properly collected, preserved, or linked to the crime. These foundational facts must be independently proved by the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody, did not examine the officer who collected the samples, and did not produce or identify the seized articles in court.

As a result, the High Court observed that the forensic reports, though present on record, had no real evidentiary worth—effectively reducing them to “waste paper.” This striking phrase underscores an important judicial principle: a report’s presence in the file is not the same as its probative value in law.

For Sessions Judges, the practical takeaway is clear. Before relying on forensic evidence, the court must ensure that the seizure or collection of material is properly proved, the chain of custody is intact, and the material is clearly connected to the accused. Equally important, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to respond to the evidence.

The judgment also cautions against over-hasty trial procedures. Speedy trials are important, but not at the cost of fairness and evidentiary integrity—especially in cases involving severe punishments.

Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: forensic science strengthens a case only when it rests on solid legal foundations. A forensic report is not a shortcut to conviction; it is merely one piece of evidence that must be carefully tested, properly proved, and fairly presented before it can support a finding of guilt.

Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding a withdrawn Class 8 social science textbook, over 50 academicians have written to Droupadi Murmu, raising concerns about what they describe as “judicial overreach” by the Supreme Court of India. The dispute centres on a textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, which included a chapter on the judiciary that triggered legal scrutiny.

In their letter dated April 7, the 51 signatories urged the President to intervene and ask the Union Ministry of Education to approach the court for withdrawal of the ban. They also called for relief from the punitive actions taken against noted educationist Michel Danino, academic Suparna Diwakar, and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar, who were associated with the Textbook Development Team. The scholars warned that the issue could have far-reaching consequences for academic freedom and the future of education in India.

The textbook in question, aligned with the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023, was published on February 24. However, a chapter discussing the judiciary—particularly references to case pendency and corruption—sparked controversy. Acting suo motu on February 26, the Supreme Court termed portions of the content “offending,” imposed a ban on the book, and later directed institutions to distance themselves from the individuals involved.

The signatories argue that such action exceeds judicial authority. Citing legal interpretations, they contend that banning a book should require a legislative framework rather than direct court intervention. They also raised concerns about a possible violation of natural justice, pointing out that the individuals faced punitive measures without being given a proper hearing, potentially affecting their fundamental rights, including their livelihoods.

Beyond legal concerns, the scholars emphasized the academic implications of the ban. They argued that the decision has curtailed open discussion and prevented educators from objectively examining the chapter. According to them, the court’s ruling relied on selective excerpts rather than a comprehensive review of the content, undermining the broader goal of fostering critical thinking among students.

The group also suggested that a less extreme approach—such as removing or revising the disputed section while allowing the rest of the textbook—could have been adopted. Instead, they warn, the blanket ban risks creating an atmosphere of caution and self-censorship within academic circles.

In their appeal, the scholars have called for multiple steps: withdrawal of the ban, reinstatement of the textbook without the contentious portions, revocation of action against the three individuals, and the inclusion of a wider range of academic voices in any future review process.

The controversy highlights a deeper tension between judicial authority and academic independence, raising important questions about how educational content should be reviewed, regulated, and debated in a democratic society.

The Patna High Court has announced a recruitment drive for Technical Assistant (Group-C) posts, offering a promising opportunity for government job aspirants in Bihar. A total of 53 vacancies will be filled through this process, and the online application window is currently open on the official website.

Interested candidates can submit their applications by April 30, 2026, while the last date to pay the application fee is May 2. The vacancies are distributed across multiple categories, with 24 posts for General, 8 for Scheduled Caste (SC), 1 for Scheduled Tribe (ST), 9 for Extremely Backward Class (EBC), 6 for Backward Class (BC), and 5 for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates.

To be eligible, applicants must hold an ITI certificate or a diploma in Computer Science, Engineering, or Electronics and Communication from a recognised institution. In addition, candidates are required to have at least one year of relevant work experience in the field. The age limit for applicants is set between 18 and 37 years, with relaxation in the upper age limit applicable for reserved category candidates as per government norms.

The selected candidates will be offered a salary ranging from ₹29,200 to ₹92,300, along with allowances as per government rules, making it an attractive career option in the public sector. The application fee is ₹1,100 for candidates belonging to General, BC, EBC, and EWS categories, while SC and ST candidates are required to pay ₹550.

Applicants are advised to carefully complete the online registration process, upload all necessary documents, and retain a printout of the submitted application form for future reference.

The Supreme Court of India has turned down a request for mandatory menstrual or period leave for women in jobs and schools, warning that strict rules might actually reduce women's involvement in the workforce. A rigid paid leave requirement could push employers to avoid hiring women, deepening gender discrimination instead of solving it. The petition called on the court to order states to create standard rules giving paid time off during menstruation for both students and workers.

The court still says menstrual hygiene is part of dignity, health, and educational access. It has already supported better restroom facilities, free or low-cost sanitary supplies, and public education efforts to reduce stigma around periods. And the decision doesn't require any new laws, but it upholds past support for improving hygiene conditions and fighting misconceptions about menstruation.

The decision has kicked off a wider discussion about whether India should introduce official menstrual leave or instead develop more flexible workplace rules.

Gynaecologists have spoken out, pushing for realistic, health-based solutions instead of one-size-fits-all leave plans. They point out that as a few women suffer intense cramps, the majority can manage symptoms with medical help and simple office changes.

These experts say workplaces should talk openly about periods and offer choices like brief breaks, adjusted tasks, or remote work during tough times. Providing clean restrooms and free sanitary supplies is also considered needed for female employees.

Doctors warn against using over-the-counter remedies without a doctor's advice. They emphasize that pain relief or hormonal therapies should only come after medical evaluation. Any ongoing or serious pain needs prompt check-ups to find possible root causes.

Gynaecologists quoted in the discussion highlight that severe menstrual pain can be managed effectively without blanket leave. They suggest normalising conversations about periods at work, allowing short breaks, flexible duties or work‑from‑home options on difficult days, and ensuring access to clean toilets and sanitary‑napkin dispensers. They also advise using painkillers or hormonal therapy only under medical supervision and seeking prompt care if symptoms are unusually severe or debilitating.

The construction of the proposed Jhajjar Campus was stopped because the load-bearing capacity of the land was too low due to the land's topography and waterlogging, which made it unsuitable for IIT Delhi facilities. Sonipat Campus: IIT Delhi has a functioning Sonipat campus equipped with 35 advanced research facilities including sophisticated microscopes, 3D metal printers, and devices for environmental monitoring which collectively support the researches in a number of scientific fields.

Ideas & Partnerships: The Sonipat campus is home to Atal Incubation Centre, I-Hub Foundation for Cobotics, and the Atmospheric Observatory, creating a setup for industry interaction, entrepreneurship, and research at the forefront of the field. The Jhajjar campus of IIT Delhi may not be launched as the land that was sanctioned for the project was found to be unfit for the construction of IIT Delhi Extension Campus in Jhajjar.

The university administration further stated that it plans to extend the same system to vocational courses in the near future. “The step is expected to align vocational education more closely with the NEP-2020 framework and provide students with improved opportunities for skill-based learning,” he said, adding that adopting OMR-based examinations will make the evaluation process more efficient while maintaining fairness and accuracy in assessing students enrolled in enhancement and value-added courses.

In addition, the College of Commerce, Arts and Science is likely to start LLB courses from the next academic session this year.While the state govt has approved the proposal, the university is awaiting final approval from the Bar Council of India, sources said, adding that LLB teaching, which was stopped for the last three years due to a lack of proper infrastructure, is to get approval for 120 seats now.