In its ruling on February 21, the High Court stated that it lacks expertise in educational policy matters, acknowledging the state government as the most suitable authority for such decisions. Read details below
The Bombay High Court highlighted that education, traditionally revered in Indian culture, has unfortunately become financially inaccessible. It emphasized the constitutional duty of the state to guarantee quality education for all. The court made these remarks while declining to nullify Maharashtra government's approvals for two organizations to establish educational facilities in Pune.
In its ruling on February 21, the High Court stated that it lacks expertise in educational policy matters, acknowledging the state government as the most suitable authority for such decisions. It emphasized that the power to select cannot be deemed arbitrary. Referring to Pune as the 'Oxford of the East' with a long-standing reputation for attracting students from India and abroad, the court recognized the city as a focal point for educational institutions. However, it also noted significant growth and competition in establishing colleges and schools, both within Pune and its outskirts, due to urban expansion. Despite the cultural reverence for education, the court observed that over time, it has become financially inaccessible, reflecting a shift in its accessibility and affordability.
In such circumstances, the court underscored that it is the constitutional obligation of the state to ensure that quality education is accessible to all, thereby fostering the growth and development of humanity. It dismissed two petitions filed by the Jagruti Foundation and the Sanjay Modak Education Society, which contested the state government's decisions from the previous year denying them permission to establish educational institutions in Pune. The refusal was based on the petitioners' lack of prior experience in the educational sector and their comparatively weaker financial standing. The petitioners argued that singling them out based on irrelevant or extraneous factors violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, the bench clarified that judicial intervention is warranted only if the decision-making body violates the principles of natural justice or exceeds its authority. The court emphasized that it cannot deem the state government's refusal to grant permission to the petitioners as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair, as the decision was made after considering all relevant factors. It highlighted the significance of factors such as land nature, financial resources, and infrastructure in establishing or operating an educational institution. Additionally, the court stressed the importance of prior experience in running educational institutions when determining the capability of an entity to establish a new facility.
