Allahabad High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Uttar Pradesh Govt's School Pairing Policy

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court on Friday concluded hearing on pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to pair primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students with nearby institutions, but reserved its verdict.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia reserved the order on two separate petitions filed by Krishna Kumari and others, who are seeking the cancellation of the state government's June 16 order.

The petitioners' counsel, LP Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra, argued that the state government's action violates Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to education for children aged between six and 14 years.

They contended that the implementation of the decision would deprive children of their right to education in their neighbourhood. The government should instead focus on improving the standard of schools to attract more students, the petitioners said.

South Calcutta Law College To Reopen On July 7 After Gang Rape Probe Gets Police Clearance

It was argued by the petitioners that the government has chosen the "easier way" of closing these schools, rather than working towards public welfare, overriding economic gains or losses.

However, Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia, Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh, and Senior Advocate Sandeep Dixit, representing the director of basic education, argued the government's decision was made according to rules and is free from flaws or illegalities.

They stated that many schools have very few, or even no students and clarified that the government has not "merged" the schools but "paired" them, assuring that no primary schools are closed.

During the hearing, Kudesia requested the court to ban reporting on the case, claiming that the ongoing coverage was "tarnishing the image of government lawyers."

Punjab Govt To Host Business Blasters Expo At IIT Ropar, Showcasing 40 Student-Led Ventures

However, Justice Bhatia rejected this demand, stating that while the government could frame a law to that effect if it wished, the court would not issue such an order.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)