Indore bench issues notices to Centre and state government over PIL highlighting infrastructure deficit, shortage of teachers and alleged misuse of funds; next hearing on August 17

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a strict view of the state's ailing education system, issuing notices to the central and state governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) that highlights severe deficiencies in government schools across the state.

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi, hearing the matter on Wednesday, directed both governments to file their responses by August 17.

The PIL was filed by social worker and advocate B.L. Jain from Sendhwa. Advocate Abhishek Tuganawat, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that the state's education system is in a deep crisis, with millions of students being denied even the basic facilities guaranteed under the Constitution and the Right to Education Act.

According to the petition, out of the sanctioned 2.89 lakh teaching posts in the state, 1.15 lakh positions remain vacant — nearly 40 per cent of the total sanctioned strength. The situation is so dire that 1,895 schools in the state do not have a single teacher posted.

Citing the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report for 2025, the petition stated that out of 83,514 schools in the state, approximately 5,000 have dilapidated and unsafe buildings. Around 3,400 schools lack toilet facilities, while nearly 10,000 schools do not have electricity. Boundary walls are missing in 40,000 schools, and thousands of schools do not have access to clean drinking water. Several schools continue to operate in makeshift huts.

The petition further pointed out that more than 59,000 schools in the state do not have computer facilities, even as the government talks about digital education. Over the past decade, the number of students from Class 1 to Class 12 in government schools has declined by more than 22 lakh, even as the state's population has grown — a clear indicator of the declining trust in the government education system.

The petitioner also brought to the court's attention that the Supreme Court, in January 2026, had directed all government and private schools to ensure separate toilets for boys and girls and provide free sanitary pads for girl students. Despite these directives, many schools are yet to comply.

The PIL also raised the issue of alleged misuse of government funds, claiming that adequate expenditure is not being made on basic necessities like education and health, while large amounts are being spent on other heads. Corruption in construction and repair works was also flagged.

The court has sought responses from both governments by August 17, when the matter will be heard next.

'Paisa Interest Litigation': SC slams misuse of PILs in Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court has questioned the motives of the Indian Young Lawyers Association’s 2006 petition, noting that PILs are increasingly becoming tools for personal gain.

In a stinging critique of the current judicial landscape, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have largely devolved into "Paisa Interest Litigation" or "Publicity Interest Litigation." The bench, which is currently deliberating on critical questions surrounding religious freedom, expressed serious reservations about how such petitions are being leveraged in the modern era.

The verbal observations came during the ongoing hearing of the Sabarimala temple matter, which has triggered a broader debate on the intersection of individual rights and centuries-old religious traditions.

Bench questions 2006 petition motive

The top court’s scrutiny was specifically directed at the Indian Young Lawyers Association, which had filed the original petition in 2006 challenging the age-old ban on the entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple in Kerala. Justice Surya Kant, part of the bench, noted that the association seemed to have little to do with the actual devotees or the ground reality of the shrine at the time.

"It has become more of a Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, and now Money Interest Litigation," the bench remarked, highlighting a growing trend where litigations are filed based on newspaper reports rather than substantive personal or community injury.

Concerns over 'proxy' litigation

Sources familiar with the proceedings said the court expressed concern over whether the original petitioners were truly "aggrieved parties." The bench noted that the 2006 PIL was largely constructed around media reports. The judges suggested that organizations should perhaps focus more on the welfare of their own members rather than seeking judicial intervention in complex religious customs where they may not have a direct stake.

This line of questioning shifts the focus back to the locus standi—the right to bring a lawsuit to court—which has been a point of contention in the Sabarimala case for years.

The Sabarimala legal timeline

To understand the weight of these remarks, one must look back at the 2018 verdict. A five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, had previously lifted the ban on women of menstruating age, calling the practice unconstitutional. However, that decision led to a massive wave of review petitions and sparked a nationwide debate on whether the court should interfere in "essential religious practices."

The current nine-judge bench was subsequently formed to address larger issues, including whether a person who does not belong to a particular religion can challenge its practices through a PIL.

Focus on religious freedom

The court is currently dealing with a massive bundle of petitions that go beyond just Sabarimala. The scope has expanded to include the entry of women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the rights of Parsi women married outside their faith.

Legal experts suggest that the court’s latest comments on "Paisa Interest Litigation" signal a stricter approach toward entertaining PILs in the future. The bench indicated that while the doors of the court are open to the marginalized, they should not be used as a platform for political or financial maneuvering.

Impact on future filings

The proceedings on Tuesday have sent a clear message to the legal fraternity. Local authorities and legal observers in the capital believe this could lead to a tightening of the rules governing PIL admissions.

The hearing is expected to continue through the week, with the bench likely to further define the boundaries of judicial overreach in matters of faith. For now, the "paisa interest" remark stands as a stern warning against the commercialization of the judicial process.

SC Notice to Centre on Muslim Inheritance Law Plea

Petition Alleges Gender Discrimination

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Union government’s response on a public interest litigation challenging the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, over provisions that allegedly discriminate against Muslim women in matters of inheritance.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Ministry of Minority Affairs after hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for petitioners Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation.

Constitutional Violations Flagged

The petition contends that existing inheritance rules under the Shariat Act grant Muslim women half or even less of the share given to male counterparts. This, the plea argues, violates Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality.

Bhushan submitted that succession is a civil matter and does not qualify as an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. “This is a very important constitutional issue that requires consideration by this Court,” he told the Bench.

Court Tags With Pending Cases

The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Panchol, tagged the matter with similar pending petitions. The court is already hearing cases filed by Muslim individuals seeking application of the Indian Succession Act instead of Shariat law in inheritance disputes.

According to officials familiar with the proceedings, the court agreed that the issue warrants constitutional scrutiny.

Uttarakhand UCC Cited as Precedent

The petition has invoked the Uniform Civil Code enacted in Uttarakhand in 2024 to highlight geographical discrimination. It argues that Muslim women in Uttarakhand now receive equal inheritance rights under the UCC, while those in other states remain bound by the unequal provisions of the Shariat Act.

This creates an unconstitutional classification based solely on location, the plea states.

 Key Reliefs Sought Before Apex Court

The petitioners have asked the court to declare Section 2 of the 1937 Act void to the extent it discriminates against Muslim women, arguing it violates Articles 13, 14, 15, and 21. They also want a ruling that inheritance rules under Shariat are not essential religious practices.

Interim directions have been sought to ensure uniform, gender-equal inheritance rights for Muslims across India until Parliament amends the law. The plea also requests the court to direct the Union government to amend succession laws in line with constitutional guarantees.

 Constitutional Questions at Core

Legal experts tracking the case say it raises fundamental questions about the intersection of personal laws and fundamental rights. Can religious personal laws governing succession withstand scrutiny under the Constitution’s equality framework? The answer may reshape inheritance rights for millions of Muslim women.

 What Happens Next

The Centre has been given time to file its response. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter alongside pending petitions in the coming weeks. Legal observers note that any judgment could have far-reaching implications for personal law reforms across the country.

As per sources, the government is yet to formulate its official stand on whether it supports amending the 1937 Act or defending its provisions as protected religious practice.

Govt Seeks Scrapping of PIL as SC Hears Sabarimala Case Day 3

A nine-judge Constitution bench continues hearing on women’s entry into religious places; Centre argues PIL concept has outlived its utility.

Nine-Judge Bench Resumes Hearing  

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution bench convened for the third consecutive day on Thursday to hear cases relating to discrimination against women at religious places. The lead matter remains the ban on women’s entry into Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, alongside four other sensitive religious practices. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is examining petitions that have remained pending for over 26 years.

Centre Calls PIL Outdated  

In a sharp submission before the court, the central government questioned the very utility of public interest litigation. Written arguments filed by the government stated that “the time has come to not only define PILs, but to eliminate them altogether.” The government argued that PIL was conceived when poverty and illiteracy prevented large sections from accessing courts. With e-filing and technological advancements, the Centre claimed, such constraints no longer exist, making PIL redundant.

SG Mehta Challenges Previous Verdicts  

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, went a step further. He told the bench that the Supreme Court’s decisions decriminalising adultery and consensual homosexual acts were “not sound law.” According to Mehta, those rulings were based on personal interpretations of “constitutional morality” and should not be treated as binding precedents for 1.4 billion Indians. He cited a Harvard Law Review article to argue that democratic majority viewpoint must prevail.

Court Questions Devotee Status  

As the hearing progressed, Justice B.V. Nagarathna raised a critical question. She asked Mehta who the original petitioners in the Sabarimala case were. The solicitor general replied that the petition was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association. Justice Nagarathna then observed, “They are not devotees. If someone who is not a devotee and has nothing to do with the temple challenges it, can the court hear such a writ petition?” The query pointed to a fundamental debate on locus standi in religious matters.

Five Cases Under Scrutiny  

The nine-judge bench is not limiting itself to Sabarimala. The hearings cover five specific issues: entry of women into Sabarimala temple, female circumcision in the Dawoodi Bohra community, women’s entry into mosques, Parsi women’s entry into the Agiyari (fire temple), and questions of gender discrimination in Muslim personal law. Each matter involves competing claims of religious freedom and constitutional rights to equality.

26-Year Legal Battle  

The legal fight over Sabarimala dates back nearly three decades. In 2018, a five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority lifted the ban on women of menstruating age entering the temple. More than 50 review petitions followed, leading the court to refer the matter to a larger nine-judge bench. Hearings are scheduled from April 7 to April 22. Supporters of the review petitions are presenting arguments from April 7 to 9, while opposing parties will get their turn from April 14 to 16.

Next Phase of Arguments  

Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that courts remain cautious while entertaining PILs. “The situation has changed over two decades from 2006 to 2026. Notices are issued only when there is a solid basis,” he observed. The bench is expected to continue hearing detailed submissions on whether secular courts can decide what constitutes superstition within a religion. A final verdict from the nine-judge bench could reshape the law on religious practices and public interest litigation in India for decades to come.