The Delhi High Court on Wednesday imposed Rs 20,000 costs on a PIL-petitioner seeking "proper online classes" in schools. (Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust vs DoE).In its PIL, the petitioner, Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust, also alleged that the schools were "over-charging" fees from students and denying classes to defaulters. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan, however, refused to entertain the petition. .Calling the petition bogus, the Court questioned, ."What do you mean by proper? What education are you expecting? Tomorrow you will file a contempt saying this is also not proper?".The Court explained, ."These are vague terms.. if any school is running online classes, it is very easy to say that it is not proper classes.".On being informed that the basis of the petition was a newspaper report, the Court added, .You can't read a newspaper and file a PIL..The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to give any details or particulars with respect to the allegations levelled by him and that the petition was filed "without any homework"..Digital divide violates RTE Act, Art 14, 20, 21: Delhi HC directs pvt unaided schools, KVs to give gadgets to EWS students for online class.Advocate Gautam Narayan, for Delhi government, informed the Court that necessary orders and directions governing online classes and payment of fee had already been issued for the benefit of the students. .Ultimately, opining that the petition was preferred for publicity, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 20,000.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday imposed Rs 20,000 costs on a PIL-petitioner seeking "proper online classes" in schools. (Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust vs DoE).In its PIL, the petitioner, Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust, also alleged that the schools were "over-charging" fees from students and denying classes to defaulters. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan, however, refused to entertain the petition. .Calling the petition bogus, the Court questioned, ."What do you mean by proper? What education are you expecting? Tomorrow you will file a contempt saying this is also not proper?".The Court explained, ."These are vague terms.. if any school is running online classes, it is very easy to say that it is not proper classes.".On being informed that the basis of the petition was a newspaper report, the Court added, .You can't read a newspaper and file a PIL..The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to give any details or particulars with respect to the allegations levelled by him and that the petition was filed "without any homework"..Digital divide violates RTE Act, Art 14, 20, 21: Delhi HC directs pvt unaided schools, KVs to give gadgets to EWS students for online class.Advocate Gautam Narayan, for Delhi government, informed the Court that necessary orders and directions governing online classes and payment of fee had already been issued for the benefit of the students. .Ultimately, opining that the petition was preferred for publicity, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 20,000.
