CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. NIKHIL GULATI AND ANR.
Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 897; 1998 INSC 92
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, B.N. KIRPAL, M. SRINIVASAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
1998 INSC 92. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1998-02-13. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. NIKHIL GULATI AND ANR. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) I S. C. R CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. NIKHIL GULA TI AND ANR. FEBRUARY 13, 1998 [M. M. PUNCHHI, CJI, B. N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ. ] Education-In eligible students-Permission to undertake examinations under Court orders-Deprecation of-Instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent-Such casual directions by Court is abuse of process-Unless justified High Court should desid from making such orders- He/d no interference was called for under Article 136. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18853/1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 4. 9. 97 of the Rajasthan High Court in DBCSA 1181 of1997. T. C. Sharma, Neelam Shanna, Mr. Ajay Shanna and Mr. Rupesh Kumar for the Petitioner. S. K. Jain and Mr. AP. Dhamija for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are .
r permitted, under court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders for it puts the 'Rule of Law' to a mockery and promotes rather the 'Rule of Man'. A All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students, herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere wider Article 136 of the Constitution. The S. L. Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed. T. N. A.
Petitions dismissed. 1 1' '
Source: Supreme Court of India. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.