Legal Reference Library

Students who pass the class X Board examination in a CBSE school cannot claim automatic admission to class XI in the same school if the institution switches its affiliation to the State Board for higher secondary classes, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has ruled. Allowing a writ appeal preferred by a private school based in Thoothukudi district, Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and S.S. Sundar said the schooling facility offered by such institutions must be considered to have come to an end when students pass out of Class X. “It is for the student concerned to exercise the option of either continuing in CBSE pattern in Class XI and XII or switching over to State Board syllabus. If a student decides to continue his studies in Standard XI and under the CBSE pattern, he has to obviously seek admission in some other educational institution where such facilities are available,” the Bench said. “On the other hand, if he [the student] opts to switch over to State Board of education, t...

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mata Sundri Educational Welfare Society vs. Union of India has held that complete restriction cannot be imposed in respect of admission to academic courses on the basis of domicile of the State. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain quashed a circular issued by Indian Nursing Council restricting admission to Auxiliary Nursing and Midwives (ANM) Course, only to the students domicile of the State of Punjab. The Circular was challenged by an Institute and a number of students contending that it is unconstitutional The Court referring to Apex Court decisions observed: “In Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), it has been held that “now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that it recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and explicit on this point and it refers only to one domicile, namely, “domicile in the territory of India”. It is further observed that “it is dangerous to use a legal concept for conveying ...

Dealing with the question relating to admissibility of confessional statement made by an accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Court explained the law by stating that Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, it lays down how much of an information received from accused may be proved. The bench of H.L. Dattu, CJ and Arun Mishra, J further explained that for application of section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery and only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement, if something new is discove...