Telangana Ignoring Right to Education Act

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear PILs seeking stringent implementation of the Right to Education framework to ensure that children aged 6 to 14 years receive free, quality and standardised education as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with the PILs filed by Earasani Devender Reddy and others. The petitioners contended that despite their representation in September 2024, the state did not discharge its mandatory obligations under the Act, particularly in updating curriculum and teaching standards. The connected PILs challenged the alleged failure of the government and the school education department to enforce key government orders regulating the functioning, fee structure and compliance of private schools.

According to the petitioners, the authorities’ inaction led to rampant violations, adversely impacting lakhs of children. The petitioners alleged that the Director of School Education failed to collect, maintain and publish private schools’ income and expenditure statements — an obligation under the RTE Act, the Central and State RTE Rules and relevant GOs. The petitioners contended that the non-publication of such financial disclosures was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Constitution and sought directions mandating publication of all private schools’ financial data and grade-wise fee structures within a fixed timeline. The panel directed that the matter be listed after five weeks, granting time to the authorities to respond and place the required material before the court.

Woman on death row appeals sentence

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy, admitted a criminal appeal filed by a woman challenging her conviction and death sentence imposed for the murder of her seven-month-old daughter. The panel was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Banothu Bharathi Lasya Bujji. The appellant was contesting the death penalty awarded by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet. The appellant, a homemaker from Mekalapati thanda, Mothe mandal, Suryapet district, was convicted under provisions of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her infant daughter.

The trial court categorised the crime under the “rarest of rare” doctrine, awarding the death penalty by hanging, subject to statutory confirmation. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on April 15, 2021, when the accused, allegedly influenced by beliefs related to “sarpa dosham” derived from prior consultations and online videos, murdered er daughter in the presence of some deities as part of a ritualistic act.

The bedridden grandfather of the accused reportedly witnessed parts of the atrocity. She subsequently fled to her parents’ residence, where she was apprehended on April 17, 2021, allegedly confessing to the crime and guiding authorities to the recovery of ritualistic paraphernalia stained with human A-group blood. The trial court relied on forensic reports, recovered evidence, and witness testimonies, including some declared hostile, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. During proceedings, the public prosecutor sought additional time to obtain further instructions in the matter.

VST staff housing society poll stayed

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has stayed the elections of VST Workers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The judge is hearing a writ petition filed by Dubbaka Narender and another, challenging the action of the Cooperative Election Authority in proceeding with the election process without correcting the voters list. The petitioners contended that despite submitting objections and pointing out that the list contained names of deceased persons and individuals who already sold their plots, the authorities republished the same list on August 7. They contended that the court had earlier directed consideration of their objections before finalising the list, but the assistant registrar republished the same list without any modification.

Opposing the plea, the government pleader for cooperation submitted that the provisional voters list was displayed on the society notice board on August 7 and a notice was issued in a newspaper on August 9, calling for objections within seven days. It was argued that no objections were received within the stipulated time and that the petitioners were attempting to stall the election process belatedly.

The judge observed that the petitioners raised objections prior to publication of the provisional list and noted that the earlier directions of the court were not complied with. The judge held that proceeding with elections based on a defective and uncorrected voters list would not be proper. While observing that ordinarily courts refrain from interfering once the election schedule is notified, Justice Madhavi Devi held that intervention was warranted in view of non-compliance with judicial directions.

Tyagi’s wife fighting for pension from 1995

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea alleging prolonged delay in processing a freedom fighter pension claim. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Dasari Manohamma challenging rejection of the pension sought for her late husband. The petitioner contended that the application for pension was first made in 1995 and remained pending without a decision for more than 22 years. The judge noted that the freedom fighter passed away in 2017 and observed that such applications cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

The judge remarked that scrutiny of pension claims may, at most, take up to three years and that a delay spanning over two decades prima facie supported the grievance. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the representation was never disposed of with reasons and that the authorities failed to take a decision within a reasonable timeline. Seeking clarity, Justice Jukanti directed the respondents, particularly the Union of India, to state whether any guidelines existed prescribing the timeframe for forwarding recommendations in freedom fighter pension matters and posted the matter after two weeks.