The Patna High Court dismissed a petition filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2024.
The petitioners, who were the Chairman and Members of the Sanskrit Education Board constituted under the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated, as it provided for the dissolution of the existing board and the appointment of an administrator to manage its affairs.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the board, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to Sanskrit education.
The court observed that the petitioners had no vested right to continue as members of the board, and that the object of the act was not to provide such membership to the petitioners.
The court further held that the grounds raised by the petitioners on unconstitutionality had not been substantiated, and that the legislative competence of the state legislature could not be doubted.
The court also observed that the violation of constitutional provisions had not been substantiated, and that the challenge to the amendment act on the ground of arbitrariness was also not valid.
The amendment act introduced a new provision, Section 5(3), which conferred on the government the power to dissolve the board at any time, if it is satisfied that the dissolution is in the larger public interest to make the functioning of the board consistent with the aim and object of the act.
The court held that this provision was not arbitrary and was introduced to align the laws regulating Sanskrit education with the National Education Policy, 2020.
The court also held that the appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the board was only temporary, and that a committee of experts had to be appointed to study and make recommendations for reorganization and restructuring of Sanskrit education.
The court observed that the petitioners had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness, and that the petition stood dismissed.
In conclusion, the court held that the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2024 was constitutionally valid, and that the petitioners had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality.
The post appeared first on .
The petitioners, who were the Chairman and Members of the Sanskrit Education Board constituted under the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated, as it provided for the dissolution of the existing board and the appointment of an administrator to manage its affairs.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the board, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to Sanskrit education.
The court observed that the petitioners had no vested right to continue as members of the board, and that the object of the act was not to provide such membership to the petitioners.
The court further held that the grounds raised by the petitioners on unconstitutionality had not been substantiated, and that the legislative competence of the state legislature could not be doubted.
The court also observed that the violation of constitutional provisions had not been substantiated, and that the challenge to the amendment act on the ground of arbitrariness was also not valid.
The amendment act introduced a new provision, Section 5(3), which conferred on the government the power to dissolve the board at any time, if it is satisfied that the dissolution is in the larger public interest to make the functioning of the board consistent with the aim and object of the act.
The court held that this provision was not arbitrary and was introduced to align the laws regulating Sanskrit education with the National Education Policy, 2020.
The court also held that the appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the board was only temporary, and that a committee of experts had to be appointed to study and make recommendations for reorganization and restructuring of Sanskrit education.
The court observed that the petitioners had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness, and that the petition stood dismissed.
In conclusion, the court held that the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board (Amendment) Act, 2024 was constitutionally valid, and that the petitioners had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality.
The post appeared first on .