Bombay High Court's Major Judgment: School Disqualification GR in Maharashtra Quashed

The Bombay High Court has quashed two significant Government Resolutions (GRs) issued by the Maharashtra government, under which more than a hundred grant-in-aid schools had been declared disqualified. The Court clearly stated that, before taking such drastic action against any school, it is mandatory to provide them with an opportunity for an individual hearing.

A bench comprising Justice Madhav Jamdar and Justice Pravin Patil observed that making decisions such as closing down schools, without conducting a hearing, runs opposite to the principles of natural justice. This verdict has brought significant, though temporary, relief to numerous Marathi-medium and Urdu-medium schools.

Over the past few weeks, the Maharashtra government's decision had sparked intense anxiety within the education sector. This was because, in accordance with a Government Resolution (GR), a decision had been taken to exclude 433 primary schools and 324 secondary schools from receiving grant-in-aid. Furthermore, these schools were directed to apply under the Self-Financed Schools Act.

The government had warned that failure to submit an application within the specified timeframe could result in the cancellation of their recognition. Therefore, numerous teachers, parents, and students were struggling with uncertainty regarding their future. The Bombay High Court's verdict is, therefore, being viewed as a significant support for the education system.

According to the Court, this action by the government runs opposite to the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Bench observed that the schools were not granted individual hearings, ground realities were not properly taken into consideration, and the impact on the education system in rural areas was not checked. The Justices stated that a decision of such magnitude cannot be taken only through an administrative order.

The Court observed that this decision would have had its most significant impact on students from impoverished and rural areas. Specifically, nearby alternative schools might not be available; issues regarding a change in the medium of instruction could have arisen; economically weaker families would have been neagtively affected; and primary and secondary education could have been disrupted. The Bench opined that the government did not accord sufficient importance to these matters.

The Court specifically drew attention to the issue concerning Marathi-medium schools. The Bench observed that if the Government Resolution (GR) were to be implemented, many Marathi-medium schools in rural areas could face closure; this creates a contradiction between the government's stated language policy and its actual measures.

Furthermore, the Court remarked, on one hand, the government speaks of ordering the Marathi language; on the other, it is creating a situation that leads to the closure of Marathi schools.

This observation has now become a subject of discussion within both political and educational circles.