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."

The Delhi high court on Tuesday suspended the suspension of seven Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University students until April 2, observing that the way in which the university dealt with peaceful protests was "worrisome".

A bench of justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma instructed the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the university to constitute a committee of officials and student representatives to resolve the issue.

Without recourse to the submissions of the parties, reading of the record itself makes the court concerned with respect to how the protest being engaged in by the students is managed by the university.". The court is not going to enter the purpose of the protest as of now, but the papers prima facie establish that it was a peaceful protest. All of these students are of tender age," the court held in its order.

It stated: "The court is confident beyond any doubt that the administrative officials like its Vice-Chancellor (VC), Dean, Chief Proctor will take instant remedial actions to assuage the situation. A committee of officers headed by the VC will be formed and the students' representatives could also be appointed by the VC.". It is relevant here to state that the court is not entering the criminal cases and this order would not have an impact. The operation of the order of dated 12.02.2025 will, however, stand suspended until further date of hearing.

The right of peaceful demonstration of the students was recognized by the court by underlining the fact that letting their voices heard within the rubric of law was a constituent part of the civic education that they received.

The students can approach the university, definitely make an effort to raise their voice within the bounds of the law. Instead, joining such peaceful demonstrations is part of the training to instill the fundamental principles and norms of civil society," it stated.

The protests themselves occurred between the 10th and 13th of February, when the students protested over show cause notices given to them for attending their fellow students as part of a December 2024 protest held to commemorate one year since the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and 2019 incidents of alleged police brutality on university grounds.

On February 12, the university suspended 17 students and banned them from entering the campus. The following day, Delhi Police detained 14 students in the early hours, and released them after nine hours.

The pleas against the February 12 suspension order were heard by senior lawyer Colin Gonsalves, who argued that the university's action was "highly disproportionate and unreasonable" to the pacific nature of the protest. He also argued that the university allied itself with the police in arresting the students and slapped the suspensions without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

While, however, the university, as defended by counsel Amit Sahani, contended that the students did not apply for permission for staging the protest and that demonstrations did not bear "correlation" with academic affairs. The counsellor further alleged students have vandalised the property of the university and had an FIR lodged with Delhi Police. Also, Sahani argued that the students had stayed overnight outside the canteen, which was not allowed.

The court asked the university to respond to the plea of the students and fixed the next hearing on April 2.

Supreme Court on Monday permitted Ranveer Allahabadia to continue his podcast provided that he will ensure morality and decency.

The court made the order after considering an application by the podcaster for modification of rider prohibiting him from broadcasting any show until further orders. Allahbadia, having more than 10.4 million followers on Youtube, informed the SC that his programs are the "sole source of livelihood" for him.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has allowed Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps, to continue hosting his podcast, "The Ranveer Show", subject to some conditions.

The court has ordered Allahbadia to make sure that the content of his podcast is of a moral and decent standard. He is also not allowed to talk about the case on his show.

The Supreme Court has provided Allahbadia temporary protection against arrest, which shall continue until further orders. The ruling comes following Allahbadia being subjected to several criminal charges throughout the nation for inflammatory statements made on his show.

This ruling was subject to the reality that Allahbadia has employed 280 individuals, and the livelihood of the same, together with his own, is vested in the show.

The court reiterated that freedom of speech is not limitless when it deals with obscenity, and Allahbadia should ensure that the content of his blog is acceptable within these criteria.

The court will continue hearing the case, and Allahbadia's abidance of the Supreme Court's conditions will be watched attentively. The Indian Supreme Court has granted Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps, permission to resume hosting his podcast, "The Ranveer Show", with certain conditions. These include maintaining morality and decency in his content, prohibiting discussing controversial cases on the show, and providing interim protection from arrest. The decision was influenced by Allahbadia's livelihood and the need to ensure freedom of speech and obscenity.