Tag: #Guidelines

-Report by Harsh Singh Rajput

In the case of Annanya Yaduvanshi(Minor) vs Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others, the father (Rajendra Prasad) of the minor (Annanya Yaduvanshi) filed a petition, claiming compensatory time for Writing. As her daughter is suffering from hearing impairment and according to the guidelines of CBSE, she is entitled to such compensation, which CBSE itself fails to provide her.

FACTS:

In this case, Ananya Yaduvanshi is a Minor who was pursuing her class 12 from CBSE Board. She is diagnosed with Sensorineural Hearing Loss. She finds it difficult to complete her exam within the given time due to 77% hearing impairment in both ears. That’s why her father Rajendra Prasad sent an application to CBSE Board through her school regarding extra time to be given to her to write her exam. But that application got rejected by the CBSE Board by issuing a letter on 02-03-2023. Then her father as natural guardian on behalf of her daughter (who was a minor according to law) filed a petition W.P.(C) 2881/2023 and CM APPL.11182/2023 against the CBSE Board.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION:

The father of Ananya (Minor) filed the petition W.P.(C) 2881/2023 and CM APPL. 11182/2023 to dissolvethe letter dated 02-03-2023 to grant the minor necessary compensatory time to write her class 12th exam for the academic session of 2022-23. And her daughter was also suffering from Sensorineural Hearing loss i.e 77% of hearing impairment in both ears as per the rights of a Person With Disability Act, 2016.

As clearly stated in this act, ‘Responsibility has been cast upon the appropriate governments to take effective measures to ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy their rights equally with others’. That’s why her father filed a petition against the letter issued by the CBSE, which was rejecting thePlaintiff’s application to let her daughter have some extra time while writing in the examination.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff said that as per the guidelines of CBSE dated 12-04-2019, Plaintiff(minor) should be given some extra time for writing inexamination and her father has also given anapplication regarding her impairment to the principalof the respondent of No. 3 school.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

At first, CBSE itself rejected the application of theminor for granting compensatory time by issuing a letter dated 02-03-2023. It stated that the reason for the rejection of Plaintiff’s application was that the application was not updated by their school on time. And as the application is due by its date it cannot be considered by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for Respondent Mr. Atul Kumar saidthat the impugned letter dated 02-03-2023 was given on basis of technical grounds to Plaintiff for therejection of their application.

JUDGEMENT:

The Delhi High Court said that CBSE by following its guidelines and circulars should accept the request of Plaintiff to provide extra time for writing in the examination. Further that, technical issues in the delay of application before CBSE should not be considered as important in the petitioner’s case, and the Court decided the date for the next exam of the Plaintiff is 11-03-2023 and before that CBSE has to decide the representation of the petitioner.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3JoC0ng

The High Court of Delhi received a PIL by Advocate Nikhil Borwankar regarding the implementation of the new legislation on the police who are performing search and seizure in the advocate’s premises.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared on the petitioner’s side stating that the police who perform search and seizure in the advocate’s premises are forcibly snatching the mobile of the Advocate which contains confidential data and conversations of their clients, which is in a draconian manner and is against the rule of law. By criticizing the incident of search and seizure performed by police in advocate’s premises dated 28, December 2020. He seeks to issue a notice to the government on this unduly intimidation of the police. And the plea also states that intimidating the Advocate’s professional digital devices is a grave and egregious violation of the privacy of the private citizen and that too with the member of the bar council who is always engaged with their clients. Hence, pray of the plea is that the issuance of the search warrant must be sanctioned by the director of the prosecution and the warrants issued by the court must have some alternative way to perform such search and seizures in the Advocate’s premises.

The Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma who represented on behalf of the Union of India stated that it is impossible to bring fresh legislation as per the petition. And he also opposed the plea stating that the search and seizure guild lines in according to the different acts. And he also pointed that the petition doesn’t contain any detail regarding whom and where such act of search and seizure took. At least the petition must have some names of the parties to the case. Or however, the national investigation agency and the intelligence bureau have to be parties in this case.

As per the request made by the Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, the court asked to reply to the notice directed to the central government to hear this case further. Until then the court remarked that the court is simply adjourning by awaiting the reply of the central government, by deciding to hear remaining on September 3, 2021.

-Report by AJISHA