send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Consider the following statements with reference to recent ruling of Rajasthan High court:
Which of the above statements is/are incorrect?
1 only
2 only
Both
None
A single judge bench of Rajasthan High Court recently set aside Rajasthan government’s decision to convert Shri Hari Singh Government Senior Secondary School in Peelwa, Jodhpur district, to an English medium one.
The court ruled that the conversion of a Hindi medium school to English mid-session violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression) and cannot be permitted.
Article 21A of the Constitution provides for “free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years”.
The court held that no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be instructed in a particular language or the mother tongue only, based on what has been guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.
However, at the same time, the court recognised that it could not be held that the right to education is not covered by any of the fundamental rights and stated that it is part and parcel of Article 19 (1) (a), which provides for the freedom of speech and expression.
The bench proceeded to examine the restrictions provided by Article 19 (2), holding that the state government’s decision in the present case, which was purely administrative, is not a “reasonable restriction” under the meaning of Article 19 (2).
By: A D Singh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses