Disposed

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2021PIL/116/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL petition seeking judicial direction to make constitutional and rights acts compulsory subjects in undergraduate and post-graduate courses. The High Court held that this invites judicial overreach into academic domains and is outside judicial expertise.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted leave to approach relevant authorities; the PIL petition stands disposed.

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the Union of India and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2016

¶4

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale

¶5

..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Union of India & ors.

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Ms P.S. Talekar, Advocate on behalf of Talekar & Associates for petitioner;

¶10

Mr Bhushan Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents no.4 & 5

¶11

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ AND

¶12

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶13

DATE : JANUARY 20, 2021

¶14

PC :

¶15

The present PIL petition has been instituted before this Court by a social activist. He seeks a direction upon the respondents to spread awareness of the contents of the Constitution of India, the Right to Information Act and the Consumer Protection Act among the masses by including such laws as compulsory subjects of education at high level of studies, i.e., Undergraduate and Post-Graduate courses.

¶16

In Justice K. K. Mathew’s ‘Democracy, Equality and Freedom’ (edited by Dr. Upendra Baxi), the foreword has been penned by former Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud. His Lordship expressed that “in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable

¶17

¶18

exceptions, lay plausible claim of legal scholarship.” We certainly are not exceptions and, therefore, would never dream of claiming legal or any other scholarship. Why we say so is because of the nature of concern expressed in this PIL petition.

¶19

As Judges, we primarily don the hat of an adjudicator. Having regard to the manifold activities in relation to administrative work that we perforce are bound to discharge, we also don other hats. An attempt is made by the petitioner by presenting this Public Interest Litigation to make us don the hat of an academician too and interfere in academic matters, a feld of activity where we have little or no expertise. There could be a judicial over-reach and stepping into the domain of the other organs of the State, if we were to entertain the prayers in this PIL petition. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the matter must be left to the discretion of the experts in the educational feld. The petitioner is granted leave to pursue his remedy before such authorities.

¶20

On the above term, the Public Interest Litigation petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

If an approach is made by the petitioner, the Registry shall refund the sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited by him in terms of the Court’s order dated 29^th August, 2016 as early as possible.

¶22

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶23

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶24

amj

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Munjajirao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Raghavan Pillai and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Vijaykant Vikram Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Grampanchayat Savangi through Its Upa Sarpanch Shaikh Kadir Shaikh Abdul Raheman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Apang Kamgar Kalyankari Sangh through Its District Vice President a M Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pranita Anil Shinde Vs the Commissioner and Others

Shalini Mayur Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yamunabai Sahebrao Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Machindra Sonaji Taware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Orthers

Dinkar Bhagwanrao Ingle and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Dattatray Ratan Bhakare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others