- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
The Supreme Court on July 17 declined to entertain a PIL seeking uniform education with common syllabus and curriculum for all children aged between 6-14 years, across the country.A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said students are already burdened with heavy school bags that they shoulder. “Why do you want to add to their burden by adding more books,” the bench told the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

The Supreme Court on July 17 declined to entertain a PIL seeking uniform education with common syllabus and curriculum for all children aged between 6-14 years, across the country.
A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said students are already burdened with heavy school bags that they shoulder. “Why do you want to add to their burden by adding more books,” the bench told the petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay.
The petitioner contended before the court that there should be “One Nation One Education Board” formed by merging ICSE and CBSE.
Justice Chandrachud replied: “How can you ask the court to merge one board with the other? This is not the function of the court”.
The Court told the petitioner to approach the government with his grievances, as these matters involve policies. The bench said that the Supreme Court cannot interfere in these matters.
“The Supreme Court said it will not consider the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the petitioner may use other remedies under law. So, First I will submit a detailed Representation to the PM, HM & HRD Minister, and approach High Court under Article 226 after one month if required,” said the Upadhyay.


