MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
Regular-article-logo Tuesday, 17 June 2025

STREET LEGAL 14-02-2007

Who will pay? Right to education Inordinate delay

The Telegraph Online Published 14.02.07, 12:00 AM

Who will pay?

A jeep belonging to a bank was requisitioned for election duty along with the driver. The man died in an accident while he was helping to repair the leaking septic tank at the district election officer’s house. His widow filed a case claiming compensation and employment on compassionate grounds. During the course of the case, the question arose as to who was the employer at the time of death. The Supreme Court held that since the jeep was requisitioned, the driver was temporarily in the employ of the requisitioning authorities.The court directed the requisitioning authorities to reimburse the compensation paid out to the petitioner by the bank (Zila Sahakari Kendra Bank Marjadir vs Shaljadi Begum and others).

Right to education

An applicant to an MBBS course received the call letter to appear for an exam on August 23, 2006, on August 25, 2006. She wrote to the college authorities, requesting them to consider her case, especially since she could not access the website (as advised by the college authorities) as she lived in a remote area that did not have Net connectivity. Receiving no response, she approached the Sikkim High Court. The court held that right to education is a fundamental right, implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and livelihood). The candidate should not be penalised for the postal delay and the non-availability of Internet, the court ruled, and asked the college to admit her (Hasbijom Rita Devi vs Sikkim Manipal University).

Inordinate delay

A case was filed against a bank manager in 1980, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 700. The proceedings were delayed again and again because the bank took very long to sanction the prosecution. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the case should be dropped because of the inordinate delay. The apex court held that the accused had the right to a speedy trial, as part of the fundamental right to life and livelihood. Since not a single witness had been examined in the last 26 years, the court quashed criminal proceedings against him (Moti Lal Saraf vs State of Jammu and Kashmir).

SOLON

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT