https://www.facebook.com/reel/353005624112317?s=yWDuG2&fs=e&mibextid=Nif5oz

Advocate Dipti Jain, Rajat path, Jaipur Airport Area (2026)

20/02/2026

Promoter's "Vidarbha" Shield Pierced: SC Reaffirms "Innoventive" Trinity, Mandates CIRP Admission on Default Proof, Rejecting Restructuring Novation & Settlement Delays.

Dismissing the promoter's appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Section 7 application was not barred by Section 10A, as the restructuring proposals failed to fructify due to unmet pre-conditions, leaving the original 2018 default date intact. Reaffirming the Innoventive Industries principle, the Court ruled that at the admission stage, the adjudicating authority's role is limited to ascertaining the existence of a debt and default, not the corporate debtor's viability, clarifying that Vidarbha Industries is confined to its facts. Further, the Court refused to stall the CIRP for the promoter's settlement proposals, holding that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which had repeatedly rejected them, is non-justiciable.

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Case:

Power Trust v. Bhuvan Madan & Ors

19/02/2026

Suit Alleging Coercion Not Rejectable Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC | 11 Feb
2026

Muthurajan& Anr. v.S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.
"The grounds of coercion, undue influence and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an inequitable partition,
cannot be peremptorily rejected while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC."

Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran

Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran in the case of J. Muthurajan & Anr. v. S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.

(2026) held that a civil suit alleging coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the
Trial Court and the Madras High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant's suit as an abuse of process of law.

What was the Background of J. Muthurajan & Anr. v. S. Vaikundarajan & Ors. (2026) Case?

The dispute arose from a 308-page partition deed (KBPP) which all parties admitted to having signed.

The Respondent-Vaikundarajan Group sought to enforce the deed as a binding settlement, while the Appellant-
Jegatheesan Group claimed the deed was executed under coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation, and was
only a "tentative draft."

A Conciliation Award dated January 2, 2019, purportedly issued under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, further complicated the matter. The Award was signed by a half-brother acting as conciliator, certifying the KBPP as a
formally concluded settlement.

The Respondent argued that together the documents constituted an enforceable conciliation award under Section
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Appellant alleged that no real conciliation occurred and that the Award was fabricated to legitimise an inequitable arrangement.

The Trial Court rejected the Appellant's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, treating it as vexatious and an abuse of
process of law, purely because the suit contained grounds of coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation.

The Madras High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations?

The Court, in a judgment authored by Justice K Vinod Chandran, observed that the Trial Court and the High Court
committed a fundamental error in dismissing the suit at the pleading stage itself.

The Court held that since the Appellants had raised triable issues regarding the correctness of the partition deed as
well as the conciliation award, the plaint could not be peremptorily rejected at the threshold.

The Court further noted: "We hence find the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court, resulting in the
rejection of the plaint to be egregiously erroneous in law. We are of the opinion that there is a prima facie cause of action
disclosed etc. in the suit and it cannot be termed vexatious or an abuse of the process of law."
The Court emphasized that the cause of action as disclosed was real and not illusory or fictional, and that the factual
averments, legal grounds, and relief sought were not meaningless nor could it be said at that stage that the suit was
bound to fail.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the impugned rulings of both the Trial Court and the Madras High Court.
What is Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint?

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for rejection of plaint in specific
circumstances enumerated thereunder.

Clause (a) mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action.

Clause (b) provides for rejection where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the
valuation within the time fixed by the Court.

Clause (c) deals with cases where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insuﬃciently stamped, and the
plaintiff fails to supply requisite stamp-paper within the time fixed.

Clause (d) mandates rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

Clause (e) provides for rejection where the plaint is not filed in duplicate.

Clause (f) stipulates rejection where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII.

The proviso stipulates that time for correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the
Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional cause and refusal would cause grave injustice.

The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection.

Under clause (d), the Court must determine from the averments in the plaint itself whether the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation.

The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to the face of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto
or referred to therein.

The defence set up by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The power should be exercised only in clear and manifest cases where the plaint is ex facie barred.

Where determination of limitation requires examination of evidence or consideration of mixed questions of law and
fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (d).

The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the plaint while considering an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

Where several reliefs are claimed and even one relief is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety as barred by law.

The provision should not be used to shut out genuine claims merely on technical grounds without full adjudication on
merits.

19/02/2026

Application for Withdrawal of Suit, with or without permission to file fresh one. (ORDER 23).

Ans: Withdrawal Without Permission (Absolute Withdrawal) Under Order 23, Rule 1(1), a plaintiff has an unqualified and absolute right to
withdraw their suit or abandon any part of their claim at any stage after institution.

 No Court Leave Required: The plaintiff does not need the court's permission to simply end the litigation.

 Consequences (Rule 1(4)): If a suit is withdrawn without specifically obtaining the court's "liberty" to re-file, the plaintiff is barred from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter.

 Costs: The plaintiff remains liable for such costs as the court may award to the defendant.

2. Withdrawal with Permission (Qualified Withdrawal)
Under Order 23, Rule 1(3), a plaintiff may ask for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

 Grounds for Granting Liberty: The court must be satisfied that:
o The suit is likely to fail by reason of a formal defect (e.g., misjoinder of parties, lack of statutory notice, or incorrect valuation).

There are other sufficient grounds (e.g., the suit was premature) that justify allowing fresh litigation.

 Judicial Discretion: The court exercises wide judicial discretion to ensure justice is not defeated by technicalities. It may impose terms and costs when granting this permission.

 Objections: Unlike absolute withdrawal, the defendant has the right to object to an application seeking liberty to file a fresh suit.

3. Key Limitations and Procedures

 Multiple Plaintiffs (Rule 1(5)): If there are multiple plaintiffs, one cannot withdraw or abandon the suit without the consent of the others.

 Minors: A suit involving a minor cannot be abandoned or withdrawn without the court’s leave, supported by an affidavit from the next friend.

 Limitation (Rule 2): Even if permission to file a fresh suit is granted, the plaintiff is bound by the law of limitation as if the first suit had never been filed; no fresh cause of action is created by the withdrawal.

 Appellate Stage: Withdrawal can be sought at the appellate stage, but courts may deny it if it results in the loss of a vested right or advantage gained by the
defendant in the lower court.

19/02/2026

_PSU Employee's Corruption Tweets Against Employer Can Be Misconduct: Delhi HC_⚖️

The Delhi High Court, led by *Justice Sanjeev Narula*, ruled that a PSU employee's tweets alleging corruption by their employer can be considered *misconduct under service rules*. The court emphasized that while employees have *freedom of speech*, it's subject to service rules protecting *discipline and institutional interests*.

*Criticism*
Critics argue that this decision *undermines whistleblower protections* and stifles free speech. By penalizing employees for speaking out against corruption, the court may inadvertently *shield wrongdoing* and create a culture of fear. The fact that deleting the tweets doesn't absolve the employee suggests an *overly broad interpretation of "misconduct"*. This could deter genuine whistleblowers, ultimately harming public interest.

*Legal Insights*

- The decision raises questions about balancing *Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech)* and *confidentiality obligations*.
- The *Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014* provides safeguards for persons making disclosures about corruption.
- Courts must adopt a *proportionate approach* balancing accountability with free speech protections.

*Conclusion*

The Delhi HC's decision highlights the need for clarity on whistleblower protections for PSU employees. Striking a balance between accountability and free speech is crucial to ensure corruption is exposed without fear of reprisal.

19/02/2026

*Know Your Rights: Service Charges in Hotels & Restaurants*⚖️

*In recent news (Feb 2026), the CCPA fined 27 restaurants* across India for imposing mandatory service charges, including *Café Blue Bottle (Patna)* and *China Gate (Bora Bora, Mumbai)*. *Bora Bora (Mumbai)* was also fined ₹50,000 for adding a default 10% service charge and charging GST on it.

*Legal Insights:*
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and CCPA guidelines clearly state that service charges must be optional and shown as such on the bill.
- Automatic inclusion of service charges is considered an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Consumers can seek refunds and compensation for such unfair practices under Section 39 of the Act.

*Consequences for Businesses:*
- Imposition of monetary penalties up to ₹50,000 per violation.
- Orders to refund collected service charges to consumers.
- Possible additional penalties for repeated violations, including suspension of business licenses.
- Damage to reputation and consumer trust, impacting long-term business.

If you see a service charge on your bill, check it carefully and ask for removal if it’s added without your consent. To file a complaint, call the National Consumer Helpline at *1915* or submit online at e-jagriti.gov.in.

*Conclusion:*
Service charges are meant to be a choice, not a compulsion. By staying informed and asserting your rights, you can help ensure fair practices in the hospitality industry. Awareness and action from consumers like you play a key role in holding businesses accountable and promoting transparency. 💬✨

Spread the word and share this with friends and on social media—awareness stops unfair charges.

19/02/2026

Re-view (Case of Law)

Introduction

Order XLVII in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) together with Section 114 of the Act,
provides the procedure for Review. As per the general rule, once the judgment signed and
pronounced by the court it becomes functus officio, (case to have control over the matter) and it cannot be altered or changed. The provision of Section 114 and Order 47 are relating to a review or the exception of the general rule.

Meaning:
Review means re-examination or reconsideration of the case by the same judge. It is a judicial re-
examination of the case by the same Court and by the same Judge. In it, a Judge, who has disposed of the matter, reviews his earlier order in certain circumstances.

Section 114 and Order XLVII: The provisions relating to review are provided in S. 114
(substantive right) and Order XLVII (procedure). The general rule is that once the
judgment is signed and pronounced or an order is made by the Court, it has no jurisdiction to alter
it. Review is an exception to this general rule.

Sec 114: Review

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal-has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a court of small causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon
as it thinks fit.

Who may apply to Review:
A person aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review of a judgment. A "person aggrieved" means a person who has suffered a legal grievance or against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully re- fused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.”

WHEN REVIEW LIES?:
CIRCUMSTANCES

A review petition is maintainable in the following cases:

(a) Cases in which no appeal lies
A decree or order from which no appeal lies is open to review. Hence, an application for review
against a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes is competent. On the same principle, where an
appeal is dis- missed on the ground that it was incompetent or was time-barred, the provisions of review would get attracted.

(b) Cases in which appeal lies but not preferred A review petition is also maintainable in cases where appeal is provided but no such appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party. The fact that an order is subject to appeal is no ground to reject an application for review. An application for review can be presented so long as no appeal is preferred against the order.
Where, however, an appeal is already instituted before making an application for review, the court cannot entertain such application. Likewise, where an appeal is preferred and is disposed of, no review would lie against the decision of the lower court. But if an application for review is preferred first and then an appeal is filed, the jurisdiction tion of the court to deal with and decide the review petition is not affected.

(c) Decisions on reference from Court of Small Causes
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows a review of a judgment on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.

GROUNDS
An application for review of a judgment may be made on any of the following grounds:45
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
(i) Discovery of new evidence
A review is permissible on the ground of discovery by the applicant of some new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could
not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed.

(ii) Error apparent on the face of record Another ground for review is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. What is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, and it should be determined judicially on the facts of each case. Such error may be one of fact or of law.

However, no error can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record if it is not self-
evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it." In other words, an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record where one has to travel beyond the record to see if
the judgment is correct or not.”

(iii) Other sufficient reason
The last ground for review is "any other sufficient reason". The expression "any other sufficient reason" has not been defined in the Code.

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius,
the Supreme Courts has held that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.,

the Supreme Court rightly observed: A review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.

19/02/2026

TYPES OF WILLS:

I. Privileged Will
The only persons who can make a privileged Will are the following:

(a) Soldier/airman employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare;

and (b) mariner at sea. Relevant section of Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as follows.

A privileged Will can be in writing or can be oral. A privileged Will written in his own hand by the Testator need not be signed. A privileged Will signed by the Testator does not need attestation by witnesses.

Privileged Will is a special
Will made in extraordinary circumstances like war or dangerous expedition.

Most importantly, Hindus are not permitted to make privileged Wills since the relevant sections 65 and 66 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 are not listed in Schedule III of the Act.

II. Unprivileged Will
Every person who is not entitled to make a privileged Will can only make an unprivileged Will. In other words, Hindus can only make unprivileged Wills.

Essential procedural requirements of an unprivileged Will can be summed up
as follows:

A) Must be in writing,

B) Signed by testator in the presence of witnesses,

C) Signed by two or more witnesses in presence of the testator The most essential requirement for a Will as per Indian law is attestation by two or more witnesses.

III. HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
A person can take any plain paper and write the Will in his / her own hand putting down his / her wishes to paper without any need for assistance from a legal professional. Such a Will in one’s own handwriting is called Holograph Will. If a Holograph Will is duly attested by witnesses, there is strong presumption in favor of genuineness of the Will. So, if one has a clear mind and decent control on language, one should write out the Will in one’s own handwriting, sign it in front of two witnesses and get the signature of the two
witnesses.

It must be stressed that even when a Will is a Holograph Will, the requirements of signature of the testator and attestation by witnesses must be complied with. Any slip with respect to either the signature or the attestation will make the Will null and void. Assistance of a legal professional is not strictly required for making of a Will. A lawyer can, however, help avoid confusions caused by poor drafting or errors of language / grammar. An experienced and seasoned legal adviser can also help a testator clarify and crystallize his / her thoughts and wishes.

A holographic will must be in your own handwriting, and it doesn’t have to be witnessed. Although this might sound easier, holographic wills can cause problems after you die because the court will have to decipher and verify your handwriting. This can cause hassles for your family.

IV. ORAL WILL:
Oral wills are valid in just a few states and under very limited circumstances.

They usually require a present of fear of death and they can be used only to distribute personal property. Oral wills are unusual and uncertain. If you are planning to make a will, do not plan to make an oral will on your death bed.

Instead, take some time to make a formal will.

V. JOINT AND MUTUAL WILL:
A joint will distributes the property of two or more people, usually a married couple. Joint wills determine what will happen to the couple’s property after one spouse dies, and also what will happen to the property after the second spouse dies. though it may seem convenient to a couple to make just one will, joint wills can cause problems for the surviving spouse because it ties up property and restricts what he or she can do with it, forever. For example, if a couple makes a joint will and the husband dies in his forties, the wife may live another 40 or more years but she will still be bound by the terms of the will made earlier in her life. Joint wills are best used (if at all) by couples who have children in common and who want to ensure that property will go to those kids (instead of a subsequent spouse or child). But there are better ways
to do this, like using children’s trusts.

Instead of making a joint will, consider making mutual wills (also called reciprocal or mirror wills). Mutual wills are two separate wills that are close mirrors of each other. They allow couples to “leave everything to each other” and any number of other similar wishes, but because each person has his or her own will, he or she is free to change it as needed after the first spouse dies.

CONDITIONAL AND CONTINGENT WILL:
Conditional wills only go into effect when a certain act or condition happens.

This means something other than the person who wrote the will’s death. This could be a future event not closely related to writing the will, such as attaining a certain age.

You need a lawyer to draft this type of will.

STATUTORY WILL:
A statutory will is one that contains standard terms provided by state law.

These state laws were created to allow people to make their own standard will that will be easily recognized and probated. Statutory forms can normally made without a lawyer by using the state’s fill in the blank forms.

A few states have mandatory provisions considered part of the statutory will. In these states, the standard terms are implied, even if they weren’t explicitly written
in the will.

SELF-PROVING WILL:
A self-proving will, (or a self-proving affidavit attached to a will), must be notarized, and certifies that the witnesses and testator properly signed the will.

This type of will makes it easy for the court to accept the document as the true will of the person who has died, serving as testimony, and avoids the delay and cost of locating witnesses at the time of probate.

26/10/2025

*NLU Consortium expert committee invites public comments for CLAT 2027*

Suggestions and comments will be accepted till November 4, 2025.

26/10/2025

📢 इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट: शिक्षकों की गैर-हाज़िरी गरीब बच्चों के शिक्षा के अधिकार का उल्लंघन

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि सरकारी स्कूलों में शिक्षकों की अनुपस्थिति, ग्रामीण व गरीब बच्चों के शिक्षा के मौलिक अधिकार (Right to Education) का सीधा हनन है। कोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार को शिक्षकों की उपस्थिति सुनिश्चित करने के लिए सख़्त नियम बनाने के निर्देश दिए।

👩‍🏫 मामले की पृष्ठभूमि:
बाँदा ज़िले की प्रधानाध्यापिका इन्द्रा देवी ने अपने निलंबन के खिलाफ हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दायर की थी।
30 अगस्त 2025 को ज़िलाधिकारी द्वारा किए गए औचक निरीक्षण में पाया गया कि:
• प्रधानाध्यापिका और अधिकांश शिक्षक बिना अनुमति अनुपस्थित थे
• उपस्थिति पंजिका में स्टाफ के हस्ताक्षर दर्ज नहीं थे
• छात्रों की उपस्थिति दर्ज नहीं थी
• शिक्षा के लिए दिए गए टैबलेट उपयोग में नहीं थे
इन्हीं आधारों पर उन्हें निलंबित किया गया।

⚖️ कोर्ट की मुख्य टिप्पणियाँ:
कोर्ट ने गंभीर चिंता जताते हुए कहा:
✅ शिक्षकों की पूर्ण समय उपस्थिति न होना, RTE Act, 2009 के उद्देश्य को विफल कर देता है
✅ इसका सबसे ज़्यादा नुकसान गरीब ग्रामीण बच्चों को होता है, क्योंकि वे कोचिंग या प्राइवेट शिक्षा का खर्च नहीं उठा सकते
✅ ईमानदार और नियमित शिक्षक अनावश्यक अतिरिक्त बोझ झेलते हैं, जिससे असमानता पैदा होती है
✅ शिक्षक केवल कर्मचारी नहीं — उनका पद “पवित्र दायित्व” है, और उन्हें बच्चों के लिए आदर्श प्रस्तुत करना चाहिए
✅ यदि शिक्षक समय पर आएँ, पूरी अवधि पढ़ाएँ और समय पर जाएँ, तो शिक्षा व्यवस्था की अधिकांश समस्याएँ दूर हो सकती हैं

📍 सरकार को दिए गए निर्देश:
हाईकोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार के शीर्ष अधिकारियों को निर्देश दिया कि वे:
• ऐसा सख़्त मेकैनिज़्म तैयार करें जिससे शिक्षक पूरे समय स्कूल में उपस्थित रहें
• डिजिटल अटेंडेंस सिस्टम को कागज़ों से बाहर निकालकर जमीनी स्तर पर लागू करें
• ज़िला एवं ब्लॉक स्तर पर बनाई गई टास्क फोर्स को सक्रिय करें और निरीक्षण रिपोर्ट कोर्ट में दें
• शिक्षक उपस्थिति सुनिश्चित करने के लिए नए नियम और गाइडलाइंस बनाएँ

📉 कोर्ट ने इसे गंभीर मुद्दा क्यों कहा?
• इससे बच्चों का सीखने का स्तर गिरता है
• ग्रामीण स्कूलों में ड्रॉप-आउट बढ़ने का खतरा बढ़ता है
• अमीर-गरीब के बीच शिक्षा का अंतर (education divide) और गहरा होता है
• यह देश के भविष्य पर असर डालता है — क्योंकि बच्चे ही राष्ट्र का भविष्य हैं

🗓️ अगली सुनवाई: 30 अक्टूबर 2025
राज्य सरकार को इस तिथि तक विस्तृत जवाब दाखिल करना होगा।

📌 Citation:
Indra Devi vs State of U.P. & Others, Allahabad High Court, Order dated 16.10.2025

---

26/10/2025

📢 Allahabad High Court: Teachers’ Absence Violates Poor Students’ Right to Education

The Allahabad High Court has held that teacher absenteeism in government schools directly violates the fundamental Right to Education of children from poor backgrounds, and instructed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame strict attendance rules for teachers.

👩‍🏫 Background of the Case:
Headmistress Indra Devi from Banda district challenged her suspension before the High Court.
During a surprise inspection by the District Magistrate on 30 August 2025, it was found that:
• The Headmistress and most teaching staff were absent without prior permission
• Attendance register had no signatures of staff
• Students’ attendance was not recorded
• Tablets provided for academic use were not utilized
Based on these findings, she was suspended.

⚖️ Key Observations of the Court:
The Court expressed deep concern and stated:
✅ Lack of full-time teacher attendance defeats the purpose of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
✅ Absenteeism harms rural and economically weaker students the most, as they cannot afford private coaching
✅ Sincere teachers are overburdened due to the negligence of others, which creates inequality
✅ Teaching is not merely employment, but a “pious duty”, and teachers are expected to lead by example
✅ Regular, punctual teaching from opening bell to closing hours can resolve most issues in the system

📍 Directions Issued to the Government:
The High Court directed top officials of Uttar Pradesh to:
• Establish a strict mechanism ensuring teacher presence throughout school hours
• Ensure that the digital attendance system is implemented on the ground and not just on paper
• Activate District-Level and Block-Level Task Forces for frequent inspections
• Frame new rules and guidelines to guarantee teacher attendance and improve quality of education

📉 Why the Court Called It a Serious Issue:
• Absenteeism lowers learning outcomes and quality of education
• Leads to increased drop-out rates in rural schools
• Worsens the education divide between rich and poor
• Ultimately affects the nation’s future, as children are the foundation of the country

🗓️ Next Hearing: 30 October 2025
The State must submit its detailed response before the Court on this date.

📌 Citation:
Indra Devi vs State of U.P. & Others, Allahabad High Court, Order dated 16.10.2025

---

Advocate Dipti Jain

20/02/2026

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

19/02/2026

26/10/2025

26/10/2025

26/10/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category