Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 08.05.2023
% W.P.(C) 5939/2023 and C.M. No. 23285/2023
VIRANDER KUMAR SHARMA PUNJ & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Meghverna Sharma, Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun
Panwar, Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Mr.
Pradyumn Rao and Ms. Mahak
Rankawat, Advocates for
Respondent/ GNCTD.
Mr. Traveen Singh Nanda, Advocate
for Respondent/ UOI.
Ms. Manisha Singh, Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Apoorv Upmanya,
Advocate for Respondent No.5/
MCD.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.
Monika Arora, CGSC, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. Yash Tyagi, Ms. Saurabh
Tripathi and Mr. Subhrodeep Saha,
Advocate for Respondent/ UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioner before this Court has filed the present Writ Petition as a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stating that they are much involved in the
rights pertaining to education of the children of this country and the present
Writ Petition has been filed for the benefit of crores of students studying or
desirous of studying in schools of Directorate of Education Delhi, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangthan, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Municipal Corporation in
Delhi and other bodies.
2. The Petitioner has further stated that after further research on this
topic, he came across an article published in the Times of India dated 09
April 2013 that Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has decided
to introduce legal studies as a subject in classes XI-XII, as a pilot project in
200 schools in India and abroad. After inquiring about the said publication
by filing RTI to the respondent no. 2/ CBSE in August, 2022 about the said
article the petitioner was informed that no records of 2013 files have been
found in the Academic Unit. In August 2022 the petitioner tried to inquire
about the CBSE letter whether legal studies is a subject of study in schools
and legal study education is being imparted to students by recruitment of
law graduate teacher on permanent basis in uniform manner in schools run
by Directorate of Education, Delhi. He was informed by the respondents that
law is not offered as a subject of study in their schools. During research the
petitioner also tried to collect the details of the schools where teaching of
legal studies at present was being imparted and he found that legal study is a
subject only in 18 private schools.
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
3. The Petitioner’s main grievance is that the subject of Legal Studies
and subject of Law should be introduced as a compulsory subject in schools
education. The Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“ I) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents to forthwith offer and introduce law
education/legal studies subject compulsorily as
elective/optional subjects in all the schools forthwith
II) Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions directing the
respondents to forthwith create adequate number of regular
posts of Law Graduate Teachers on permanent basis to impart
legal studies as per the syllabus of CBSE by framing
recruitment rules and recruit at least two Law Graduate
teachers in each and every school (One Male and One Female)
falling under their jurisdiction, area and control.
III) Pass any other, order, or directions or such further orders
or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of students, society and interest of justice, and
IV) Allow the present Public Social Legal Justice Interest
Litigation petition, in favour of the petitioners, students and
society.”
4. The petitioner states that not imparting legal education to students
violates their fundamental rights and deprives them of equality and equal
opportunity guaranteed under Article 14,21, 21-A of the Constitution of
India read with provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 and fundamental rights of the children.
5. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length
and has carefully gone through the documents on record. The Petitioner’s
prayer is for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
the Respondents to introduce Law Education/ Legal Studies as compulsory/
optional subject in the schools forthwith.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, framing of a course is the sole
domain of expert bodies and the Courts are neither equipped nor have the
academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of
statutory professional technical bodies, and to take decisions in the academic
matters involving the standards of quality of education.
7. The courses have been designed by experts of the field and the new
education policy of Government of India caters to the need of the country.
8. This Court cannot substitute its views against the views of experts on
the subject. So far as Legal Education/ Legal Studies is concerned, it is
already an optional subject in school education and the CBSE is certainly
conducting examination in respect of the optional subject of legal education/
legal studies.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Council for
Technical Education V. Surinder Kumar Dhawan And Others, (2009) 11
SCC 726 in Paragraph 16 and 17 has held as under:
“ 16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or
technical background to substitute themselves in place of
statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in
academic matters involving standards and quality of technical
education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from
individual institutions or students to permit courses of their
choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or
to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one
course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to
chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the
role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a
question of educational policy or an issue involving academic
matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law
or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced,
with reference to or connected with education, the courts will
step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad
University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this
Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17)
“11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear
to tread. …
*
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence
that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic
bodi es.””
10. In light of the aforesaid judgment as this Court is not an expert to
frame a curriculum or to draft a syllabus and the same has to be done by
experts, this Court does not find any reason to pass any order in the matter
as prayed for.
11. A similar view has been taken in the case Maharashtra States Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education V. Paritosh Bhupesh
Kumar Seth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 in Paragraph 29 reads as under:
” 29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the
other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal
position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been
repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be
extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is
wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
preference to those formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day
working of educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make
a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of
this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root
problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful
of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic
view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It
is equally important that the Court should also, as far as
possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory
provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result
of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is
unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in
mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.”
12. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that the Court should be
extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is prudent and
proper in relation to academic matters as the policies are formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience.
Therefore, it is purely a policy matter based upon the expert advices, and,
therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere as prayed for by
the Writ Petitioner.
13. In the case of Basaviah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh , (2010) 8 SCC 372,
the Supreme Court has again reiterated the same views as in the aforesaid
judgments. The relevant excerpt of the judgment are hereunder:
“ 26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980)
3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] the Court observed that the
court should not substitute its judgment for that of
academicians: (SCC p. 426, para 17)
“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to
hammer home the point that the court should not
substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no
absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should
hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.”
xxxxxx
33. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B.
CharitableTrust [(2001) 5 SCC 486] the Court reminded the
High Courts that the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely limited.
34. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang [(2001) 8 SCC 427]
the Court again reiterated the legal principle that the court
should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should
instead leave the matter to the experts in the field.
35. In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah [(2008) 14
SCC 306 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 148] the Court again reiterated
the legal principles and observed regarding importance of the
recommendations made by the expert committees.
36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal
University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] the
Court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court
to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.” ”
14. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court vide its order dated 03.07.2013
in O.W.P 903/2011 titled DCM Public School Vs. State of J&K & Ors. has
also taken a similar view.
15. In view of the aforesaid judgments, legal position in
academic/education policy matters has been re-affirmed and reiterated. The
petitioner’s submission that legal studies should be included in the
curriculum and should be imparted in every school cannot be accepted as
this issue falls within the domain of the expert bodies. The relevant
educational authorities are appropriate authorities to deal with academic
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3379-DB
policy issues involving the list of subjects to be offered to students, their
standards and quality of education to be imparted. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, it is the sole domain of the experts to
design a course and to prescribe subjects and curriculum in respect of school
education. The CBSE is a competent authority to design a curriculum/
syllabus and fix number of teachers required to teach the subjects.
16. In view of above, no case of interference is made out in the matter.
The Petitioner shall be free to submit a representation to the CBSE, if so
advised.
17. The admission of the present PIL is declined accordingly.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
MAY 08, 2023
aks
W.P.(C) 5939/2023 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:16.05.2023
14:41:58