In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that an outright prohibition on students using smartphones in schools is both "undesirable and unworkable." Rather, the court has brought in rules for regulated use of mobile phones, balancing the use of technology for education against its possible distractions.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, pronouncing the verdict, ruled that students should not be completely barred from taking smartphones to school. But their use should be controlled to provide an efficient learning environment.

Under the new rules, students would be allowed to use mobile phones for purely educational purposes such as research, utilization of online materials, and educational apps. The use of smartphones will be monitored and supervised by teachers in order to avoid misuse or disturbance in class.

Moreover, the court emphasized the importance of parents in ensuring compliance with these regulations by children. Parents are also supposed to observe their children's use of smartphones and enforce proper digital behavior in the home and school environments.

The judgment has been greeted by students, parents, and teachers who have long pushed for a balanced use of mobile phones in schools. The ruling recognizes the crucial role of technology in contemporary education while at the same time paving the way for action against distractions, misuse of social media, and cybersecurity concerns.

The High Court ruling is likely to act as a template for all educational institutions throughout the nation, with the aim of promoting the responsible and effective use of smartphones among pupils. Schools will now be required to develop their policies under the court's framework, resulting in a more technology-enabled and well-disciplined learning environment.

This judgment is a huge turning point for the educational landscape of India, promoting pragmatism regarding technology in schools and upholding proper checks and balances

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has announced plans to establish a National Law University in the state, with a budget of ₹50 Crore. The 28th NLU is expected to provide top-class legal education, world-class infrastructure, and opportunities for student growth. The project has been discussed for years, but was stalled due to delays and the reorganization of the region. Currently, Jammu and Kashmir has a combination of government and private law colleges offering LLB and BA.LL.B courses.

This effort is going to align Jammu and Kashmir with other states having National Law Universities, enhancing legal education quality and opening up avenues for students.

The institution of this 28th NLU is expected to serve the increasing demands of the legal field in the area and provide top-class legal education, world-class infrastructure, and valuable opportunities pivotal to the growth of students.

The concept of an NLU in J&K was discussed for years. The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in 2019 had passed the J&K National Law University Bill in order to set up the college. Delays occurred when the bill was waiting for the Governor's assent due to some clarifications. Although it was cleared by the Governor in the same year, the project was again stalled after the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir.

Today, Jammu and Kashmir boasts a combination of government and private colleges that provide law courses such as LLB and BA.LL.B. Some of these institutions include the University of Kashmir, the University of Jammu, and the Central University of Kashmir, among other private law colleges, such as Kashmir Law College.

A school once recognized as a minority institution would continue to avail itself of minority privileges, it made a difference or not, whether or not it received a minority certificate from West Bengal Minorities Commission, Calcutta High Court ruled on Thursday.

"Once a minority, always a minority," said Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, rejecting a PIL filed in 2019, praying that schools operated by West Bengal Association of Christian Schools could not claim minority status as the association had not made an application to the commission for renewal of minority status.

Referencing a Supreme Court ruling (in the N Ahmed versus Management of MJ High School, 1988), amongst others, the CJ noted: "It is clearly apparent that the petitioner has no knowledge of the various Supreme Court rulings on interpretations of Article 30(1) of the Constitution."

The judge proceeded to refer to the 1988 Supreme Court ruling that held that "a school which is otherwise a minority school would continue to be so. The declaration (by the state) is only an acceptance of a legal character antecedent to the said declaration."

The CJ, during the hearing of the petition, remembered his judicial experience as a judge when the Tamil Nadu state determined that minority schools needed to renew annually their minority certificate.

"The settled law is that you can't insist upon a listed minority body to go to govt and seek a minority certificate. Rule 33 of the Management Rules, 1969, stipulates that such schools may seek a certificate," said the CJ.

The CJ, noting that Rule 33 of the Management Rules, 1969, was left out in 2008, noted: "The exclusion of Rule 33 will not in any way influence the right of the West Bengal Association of Christian Schools. State govt made special rules for the minority-run private institutions granted to them under Article 26 and 30 of the Constitution."

The respondent schools' counsel pleaded that the Christian schools had been established and managed since 1800. The counsel presented that they were included as minority institutions years ago when West Bengal Minorities Commission did not exist. "Now the petitioner is stating that I am not able to enjoy the minority status because I did not receive a certificate from the commission," the counsel added.

The division bench of CJ Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) had "serious doubt" regarding the bonafides of the petitioner. "The petitioner has annexed some internal documents of the schools and drafted a petition of almost 170 pages without stating the source from where he obtained those materials," the CJ noted.

Petitioner's counsel argued that there were quite a number of petitions against the schools pending in the high court and accessible online. "It is easy to obtain those documents," the counsel explained.

The division bench was adverse to such a submission. The bench in its order expressed that the court would have levied exemplary costs against the petitioner but did not so do because the petitioner was a social worker working towards providing education to the poor and downtrodden people of rural India.

In a first for a lawyer trained in India,, a Bengalurean, has been made a judge at Ontario's Family Court of Justice in Canada. This breaks barriers and opens the way for internationally trained legal experts to be integrated into the Canadian judicial system.

In contrast to earlier Indian-origin judges in Canada, who were born, brought up and educated there, Justice Naik was born and brought up in India.

She developed her legal skills at the elite National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru before pursuing a legal career in India, Sweden, Singapore and Canada.

Sources indicated, "Justice Naik began her career in New Delhi as a criminal defence and human rights lawyer, going on to specialise in intellectual property law at a boutique firm. Her skills took her to Cisco Systems in India and subsequently to Singapore, where she directed brand protection initiatives. She co-founded Robins Naik LLP in Ottawa in Canada, where she was an influential figure in family, child protection, and adoption law.''

'Her dream was to be an advocate'

Sources added, "Outside the courtroom, Justice Naik's impact is felt in legal education, advocacy and community work.

She has instructed trial and family advocacy at the University of Ottawa, sat on the board of Community Legal Services Ottawa, and offered pro bono legal services to marginalized communities, including indigenous peoples and women's shelters."

Her classmate since first to tenth standard, Elizabeth Jane, spoke to TNIE, "Vasundhara, who was residing in the CPRI quarters -- where her father was employed, used to pedal to school with me and was a sports star. She was also a good singer. I recall her childhood aspiration was to become an advocate."