CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK OF RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Dr.
T Padma., LLM., Ph D
Education,
education, education alone ! Travelling through many cities of Europe and
observing in them the comforts and education of even the poor people, there was
brought to my mind the state of our own people, and I used to shed tears. What
made the difference ? Education was the answer I got.(IV.483)
-
Swami Vivekananda
Background
The word education is derived from educare (Latin) "bring
up", which is related to educere "bring out", "bring
forth what is within", "bring out potential" and ducere,
"to lead".
Education in the largest sense is any act or experience that has a
formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual.
In its technical sense, education is the process by which society deliberately
transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to
another.
Education narrowly refers to formal institutional instructions.
Generally, international instruments use the term in this sense and the right
to education, as protected by international human rights instruments, refers
primarily to education in a narrow sense. The 1960 UNESCO Convention against
Discrimination in Education defines education in Article 1(2) as: "all
types and levels of education, (including) access to education, the standard
and quality of education, and the conditions under which it is given."
In a wider sense education may describe "all activities by which a
human group transmits to its descendants a body of knowledge and skills and a
moral code which enable the group to subsist". In this sense education
refers to the transmission to a subsequent generation of those skills needed to
perform tasks of daily living, and further passing on the social, cultural,
spiritual and philosophical values of the particular community. The wider meaning
of education has been recognised in Article 1(a) of UNESCO's 1974 Recommendation concerning Education for
International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article states that education
implies:
"the entire process of social
life by means of which individuals and social groups learn to develop
consciously within, and for the benefit of, the national and international
communities, the whole of their personal capabilities, attitudes, aptitudes and
knowledge."
The European Court of Human Rights has defined education in a narrow
sense as "teaching or instructions
in particular to the transmission of knowledge and to intellectual development"
and in a wider sense as "the whole
process whereby, in any society, adults endeavour to transmit their beliefs,
culture and other values to the young."
The right to education is
recognized as a human right and is understood to establish an entitlement to
free, compulsory primary education for all children, an obligation to develop
secondary education accessible to all children, as well as equitable access to
higher education, and a responsibility to provide basic education for
individuals who have not completed primary education. In addition to these
access to education provisions the right to education encompasses also the
obligation to eliminate discrimination at all levels of the educational system,
to set minimum standards and to improve quality.
The right to education is enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right to education has also been
reaffirmed in the 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education,
1st Protocol of ECHR and the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women.
In the European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 1, Article 2 and in
several national constitutions, e.g. the Belgian constitution (former article
17, now article 24) and the Dutch constitution (article 23)
Concept of Literacy
Literacy
has traditionally been described as the ability to read and write. It is a
concept claimed and defined by a range of different theoretical fields. The
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
defines literacy as the "ability to
identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed
and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a
continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to
develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their
community and wider society."
The history of education has a long
past. The first seats of learning were in India, Mesopotamia and Egypt and, at
later date in Greece. The Nalanda University (India) is one of the oldest
universities in the world, where Chinese monk, Xuanzang (aka Hiuen Tsang), came
to learn Budhist Philosophy and Mathematics in 625BC. Although the history of
literacy goes back several thousand years to the invention of writing, what
constitutes literacy has changed throughout history.
Literacy in India is key for socio-economic progress, and the Indian literacy rate grew to 68% in
2007 from 12% at the end of British rule in 1947. According to the latest
survey by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in June 2008, the literacy
rate among the population with age 7 and above was 72% whereas the adult
population (age15 and above) had a literacy rate of 66%.Although this was a
greater than fivefold improvement, the level is well below the world average
literacy rate of 84%, and India currently has the largest illiterate population
of any nation on earth. Despite government programs, India's literacy rate increased
only "sluggishly," and a 1990 study estimated that it would take
until 2060 for India to achieve universal literacy at then-current rate of
progress. The 2001 census, however, indicated a 1991-2001 decadal literacy
growth of 12.63%, which is the fastest-ever on record.
There is a wide gender disparity in the literacy rate in India: adult
(15+ years) literacy rates in 2009 were 76.9% for men and 54.5% for women. The low female literacy rate has had a
dramatically negative impact on family planning and population stabilization
efforts in India. Studies have indicated that female literacy is a strong
predictor of the use of contraception among married Indian couples, even when
women do not otherwise have economic independence. The 2001 census provided a
positive indication that growth in female literacy rates (14.38%) was
substantially faster than in male literacy rates (11.13%) in the 1991-2001
decadal period, which means the gender gap appears to be narrowing.
Comparative
literacy statistics
About
35% of world's illiterate population is Indian and, based on historic patterns
of literacy growth across the world, India may account for a majority of the
world's illiterates by 2020.
The
table below shows the adult and youth literacy rates for India and some
neighbouring countries in 2002 Adult literacy rate is based on the 15+ years
age group, while Youth literacy rate is for the 15–24 years age group (i.e.
youth is a subset of adults).
Country
|
Adult
Literacy Rate
|
Youth
Literacy Rate
|
China
|
93.3% (2007)
|
98.9% (2004)
|
Sri Lanka
|
90.8 (2007)
|
98.0
|
Burma
|
89.9% (2007)
|
94.4% (2004)
|
Iran
|
82.4% (2007)
|
95% (2002)
|
India
|
66.0%
(2007)
|
82%
(2001)
|
Nepal
|
56.5 (2007)
|
62.7
|
Pakistan
|
54.2 (2007)
|
53.9
|
Bangladesh
|
53.5 (2007)
|
49.7
|
World Average
|
84% (1998)
|
88% (2001)
|
Growth of
literacy
Literacy
in India grew very slowly until independence in 1947. An acceleration in the
rate of literacy growth occurred in the 1991-2001 period.
During
the British period, progress of education was rather tardy. Between 1881-82 and
1946-47, the number of primary schools grew from 82,916 to 134,866 and the
number of students grew from 2,061,541 to 10,525,943. Literacy rates in British
India rose from 3.2 per cent in 1881 to 7.2 per cent in 1931 and 12.2 per cent
in 1947In 2000-01, there were 60,840 pre-primary and pre-basic schools, and
664,041 primary and junior basic schools. Total enrollment at the primary level
has increased from 19,200,000 in 1950-51 to 109,800,000 in 2001-02. The number
of high schools in 2000-01 was higher than the number of primary schools at the
time of independence.
In
1944, the Government of British India presented a plan, called the Sergeant
Scheme for the educational reconstruction of India, with a goal of producing
100% literacy in the country within 40 years, i.e. by 1984. Although the 40
year time-frame was derided at the time by leaders of the Indian independence
movement as being too long a period to achieve universal literacy, India had
only just crossed the 64% level by the 2001 census.
Post
Independence
The
provision of universal and compulsory education for all children in the age
group of 6-14 was a cherished national ideal and had been given overriding
priority by incorporation as a Directive Policy in Article 45 of the
Constitution, but it is still to be achieved more than half a century since the
Constitution was adopted in 1949. Parliament has passed the Constitution 86th
Amendment Act, 2002, to make elementary education a Fundamental Right for
children in the age group of 6–14 years. In order to provide more funds for
education, an education cess of 2 per cent has been imposed on all direct and
indirect central taxes through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004.
Since
independence, the literacy rate grew from 18.33 per cent in 1951, to 28.30 per
cent in 1961, 34.45 per cent in 1971, 43.57 per cent in 1981, 52.21 per cent in
1991, and 64.84per cent in 2001. [During the same period, the
population grew from 361 million to 1,028 million.
Compulsory
Education
The
realisation of the right to education on a national level may be achieved
through compulsory education, or more specifically free compulsory primary
education, as stated in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Compulsory Education to all
Children of the age of 6 to 14 years(Article 21 A)
The
framers of the constitution realizing the importance of education have imposed
a duty on the State under Art. 45 as one
of the directive policy of State to provide free and compulsory education to
all children until they complete the age of 14 years within 10 years from the
commencement of the Constitution. The
object was to abolish illiteracy from the country. It was excepted that the
elected government of the country would honestly implement this directive. The
framers perhaps were of the view that in view of the financial condition of a
new state it included it in Chapter IV as one of the directive principles of
State Policy. But the Politicians of our
country belied the hope of the framers of the Constitution. It is unfortunate
that it has taken 52 years from the commencement of the Constitution to
initiate some measures by amending the Constitution to start with, although 40%
of the population of the country is still illiterate.
In
the meantime, the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan case declared that the right to
education for the children of the age 6 to 14 is a fundamental right. Even after this, there was no improvement. A demand was being raised from all corners to
make education a fundamental right. Consequently, the government enacted
Constitution (86th Amendment) Act 2002 which would make education a
fundamental age. The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act has added a
new Article 21A after Article 21 and has made education for all children of the
age of 6 to 14 a fundamental right. It provides that “the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children
of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine”.
Implementation
International
Law does not protect the right to pre-primary education and international
documents generally omit references to education at this level. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states that "everybody" has the
right to education, hence the right accures to all individuals, although
children are understood as the main beneficiaries. The rights to education are
separated into three levels:
1)
Primary (Elemental or Fundamental)
Education. This shall be compulsory and free for any child regardless of their
nationality, gender, place of birth, or any other discrimination. Upon
ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
States must provide free primary education within two years.
2)
Secondary (or Elementary, Technical and
Professional in the UDHR) Education must be generally available and accessible.
3)
Higher Education (at the University
Level) should be provided according to capacity. That is, anyone who meets the
necessary education standards should be able to go to university.
Both
secondary and higher education shall be made accessible "by every
appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free
education". The only country that has declared reservations about
introducing free secondary or higher education is Japan.
Role of the State
Today
education is considered an important public function and the state
is seen as the chief provider of education through the allocation of
substantial budgetary resources and regulating the provision of education. The
pre-eminent role of the state in fulfilling the right to education is enshrined
in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
.Traditionally, education has been the duty of a child's parents, however with
the rise of systems of education, the role of parents has diminished. With
regards to realising the right to education the World Declaration on Education
for All, adopted at the 1990 World Conference on Education for All states that
"partnerships between government and non-governmental organisations, the
private sector, local communities, religious groups, and families" are
necessary.
The
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act
After the enactment of
Constitution (86th Amendment) Act 2002 it has taken another 8
years for the passage of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE). The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act or Right to
Education Act (RTE), which was passed by the Indian parliament on 4
August 2009, describes the modalities of the provision of free and compulsory
education for children between 6 and 14 in India under Article 21A of the
Indian Constitution. With the enactment of this legislation India became one of
135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child when the act
came into force on 1 April 2010
The law came into effect in the
whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1 April 2010, the
first time in the history of India a law was brought into force by a speech by
the Prime Minister. In his speech, Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India
stated that, "We are committed to
ensuring that all children, irrespective of gender and social category, have
access to education. An education that enables them to acquire the skills,
knowledge, values and attitudes necessary to become responsible and active
citizens of India."
Legal
Framework
The
salient features of the Act:
1)
Free and compulsory education to all
children of India in the six to 14 age group.
2)
No child shall be held back, expelled,
or required to pass a board examination until completion of elementary
education.
3)
A child who completes elementary
education (upto class 8) shall be awarded a certificate.
4)
Calls for a fixed student-teacher ratio.
5)
Will apply to all of India except Jammu
and Kashmir.
6)
Provides for 25 percent reservation for
economically disadvantaged communities in admission to Class One in all private
schools.
7)
Mandates improvement in quality of
education.
8)
School teachers will need adequate
professional degree within five years or else will lose job.
9)
School infrastructure (where there is
problem) to be improved in three years, else recognition cancelled.
10) Financial burden
will be shared by state and central government.
The
Act makes education a fundamental right of every child between the ages of 6
and 14 and specifies minimum norms in government schools. It requires all
private schools to reserve 25% of seats to children from poor families (to be
reimbursed by the state as part of the public-private partnership plan). It
also prohibits all unrecognized schools from practice, and makes provisions for
no donation or capitation fees and no interview of the child or parent for
admission. The Act also provides that no child shall be held back, expelled, or
required to pass a board examination until the completion of elementary
education. There is also a provision for special training of school drop-outs
to bring them up to par with students of the same age.
Commenting
the RTE act requires the World Bank education specialist for India, Sam
Carlson, has observed as follows:
“The RTE Act is the first legislation in the
world that puts the responsibility of ensuring enrollment, attendance and
completion on the Government. It is the parents' responsibility to send the
children to schools in the U.S. and other countries.”
The
Right to Education of persons with disabilities until 18 years of age has also
been made a fundamental right. A number of other provisions regarding
improvement of school infrastructure, teacher-student ratio and faculty are
made in the Act.
The
Act provides for a special organization, the National Council for the
Protection of Human Rights ,an autonomous body set up in 2007, to monitor the implementation of
the act, together with Commissions to be set up by the states.
Implementation:
Finances
In
the Indian Constitution , education
comes under the purview of the states, and the act has made state and local
bodies accountable for the implementation. The states have been clamouring that
these bodies do not have the financial capacity to implement all the schools
needed for universal education. Thus it was clear that the central government
(which collects most of the revenue) will be required to subsidize the states.
A
committee set up to study the funds requirement and funding initially estimated
that ` 171,000 crores or 1.71 trillion (
US$ 38.2 billion) would be required in the next five years to implement the
Act, and in April 2010 the central government agreed to sharing the funding for
implementing the law in the ratio of 65 to 35 between the centre and the
states, and a ratio of 90 to 10 for the north-eastern states. However, in mid
2010, this figure was upgraded to ` 231,000 crores, and the center
agreed to raise its share to 68%. There is some confusion on this, with other
media reports stating that the centre's share of the implementation expenses
would now be 70%. At that rate, most states may not need to increase their
education budgets substantially.
Criticism
The
act has been criticized for being hastily-drafted, not consulting many groups
active in education, not considering the quality of education, and for
infringing on the rights of private schools to administer their system. Many of
the ideas are seen as continuing the policies of Sarva Shiksha Abbhiyan of the
last decade, and the World Bank funded District Primary Education
Programme DPEP of the '90s, both of which, while having set
up a number of schools in rural areas, have been criticized for being
ineffective and corruption-ridden.
Quality of Education
muslim
families resist sending their daughters to distant schools. The government
schools are riddled with absenteeism and mismanagement and appointments are
based on political convenience. Despite the allure of free lunch-food in the
government schools, parents prefer to send their children to private schools.
At the same time average schoolteacher salaries in the rural private schools
(about ` 4,000 per month) is 5-10 times less
than the government schools. The highest salaries in rural private schools are
less than the lowest salaries in the rural public schools. At the very least,
the government system is critiqued as being poor value for money.
Children
attending the private schools are seen to be at an advantage, thus
discriminating against the weakest sections, who are forced to go to government
schools. The act has been criticized as discriminatory for not addressing these
issues. Well-known educationist Anil Sadagopal said of the hurriedly-drafted
act:
It
is a fraud on our children. It gives neither free education nor compulsory
education. In fact, it only legitimises the present multi-layered, inferior
quality school education system where discrimination shall continue to prevail.
Entrepreneur Gurcharan Das noted that 54% of urban
children attend private schools, and this rate is growing at 3% per year.
"Even the poor children are abandoning the government schools. They are
leaving because the teachers are not showing up."
Public-Private
Partnership
In
order to address these quality issues, the Act also has provisions for aiding
private schools via schemes such as Public Private Partnership (PPP), and for
school vouchers, whereby parents may "spend" their vouchers in any
school, private or public. These measures, however, have been viewed by some
organizations such as the All-India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), as
the state abdicating its "constitutional obligation towards providing
elementary education".
Infringement
on Private Schools
The
Society for Un-aided Private Schools, Rajasthan petitioned the Supreme Court of India claiming the act violates the constitutional
right of private managements to run their institutions without governmental
interference. The Bill has been also been criticized for excluding children
under six years of age.
Shortcomings
a) The Right to Education
Act has certain short comings as discussed below.
1)
The Act does not rule out educational
institutions set up for profit (Section 2(n) (iv)). The protagonists of such
institutions cite Article 19(1)(g) “All citizens shall have the right to
practise any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business”.
However, they fail to realise that the Article is regulated by Article 19(6).
In the case of ‘TMA Pai Foundation vs Government of Karnataka’ (2003) Supreme Court
held ‘it is difficult to comprehend that education per se will not fall under
any of the four expressions in Article 19(1)(g).Therefore, appropriately, the
model Rules and Regulations (R&R) for the RTE Act say in Section 11(1)(b)
that a school run for profit by any individual, group or association of
individuals or any other persons, shall not receive recognition from the
government. However, this Section will not be binding on the States as it is
not a part of the Act. If the Government of India were serious about the issue,
it should have made this a part of the RTE Act.
2)
The common-sense resolution of the
discrepancy between the ‘TMA Pai
Foundation’ judgment and the model R&R for the RTE Act could lie in the
fact that education is a generic term. We need to distinguish between the
minimum quantum of education that a citizen should have in order to be able to
discharge his or her responsibilities and claim rights, and the subsequent
education geared to train him or her for a profession such as medicine or
engineering.
3)
As regards the first category, it is now
virtually universally recognised that 12 years of school education beginning at
the age of six, preceded by appropriate pre-school education, is a minimum
requirement. Therefore, in virtually all developed countries, a vast majority
of children including those of the rich and powerful go to government schools
for 12 years of totally free education. The RTE Act is unconcerned about the
four most important years of school education – that is, from Class IX to Class
XII.
4) The
second category would include three sub-categories:
a) higher
education that could lead to a technical diploma, a first university degree in
broad areas such as the liberal arts, science or commerce, or post-graduate
education in these areas;
b) education
leading to a university degree, in a common profession of prime public interest
that would cater to the basic needs of society, such as medicine, engineering,
law, or management; and
c) education
leading to training in specialised areas (which could vary with time), such as
flying, catering or hotel management, which does not lead to a degree but is a
prerequisite to join the profession at an appropriate level.
5)
It stands to common sense that the first
category should be totally free with no hidden costs whatsoever. In the second
category, in the public interest and to ensure that quality is maintained,
education in sub-categories (a) and (b) must be in a non-profit organisation.
The selections should be made on merit in a means-independent way which would
imply that appropriate fees could be charged from those who can pay. Those who
cannot pay must be able to continue their education through freeships or
scholarships, or bank loans arranged by the institution.
6)
There is no argument against education
in sub-category (c) of the second category being provided for profit, for the
employers will ensure quality in the institutions providing such education.
7)
The judgment in TMA Pai Foundation would
appropriately apply to sub-category (c). There is, therefore, a strong case to
ensure that Section 11(1)(b) of the model R&R of the RTE Act is made
mandatory for all schools without exception, through an amendment of the Act.
8)
There is the argument that if people can
pay for the education of their children they should have a right to have their
own schools where the fee charged would be determined by them or the
authorities of the school they set up. Indeed, according to the Constitution we
cannot ban such schools, which will essentially be the de facto profit-making
schools of today where almost exclusively the children of the rich and powerful
go. However, the government will be within its rights to say that such schools
would not be recognised as they would violate the principle of equity in regard
to the minimum education that every Indian citizen should have.
b)
There are certain other short comings in
the Act and the relevant Rules which are discussed below:
1)
Experience tells us that no government
school is likely to function well (or as well as the government schools did
till about 1970) unless children of the rich and powerful also attend such
schools. Further, it is a myth that private – de facto commercial – schools
provide better training than, say a Central School of the Government of India
or trust-run schools which are truly not-for-profit.
2)
The Act places no restriction on the
fees that may be charged by unaided private schools ostensibly set up as a Society
or Trust but, de facto set up to make money for the investors, just like a
corporate company. If they are truly set up not to make any profit they should
not be charging any fees, and the fees paid by the children should be
reimbursed by the government. They could then function as a part of the common
school system in which children of the neighbourhood would have to go
irrespective of their class or status.
3)
Why should unaided private schools have
a system of management with no obligatory participation of parents, unlike
other schools that require the formation of a school management committee in
which parents will constitute three-fourth of its membership?
4)
Why do we have only 25 per cent poor
children in private unaided schools? Would it not create a divide amongst the
children of the poor, leave aside a greater divide between the children of the
rich and the poor?
5)
No method is prescribed for selecting
the 25 per cent poor students for admission into unaided private schools.
Selection by lottery would be ridiculous. In the absence of a viable provision,
the private unaided (de facto commercial) schools can choose the 25 per cent
poor children in a way that the choice would benefit the school.
6)
There is nothing in the Act or its
R&R that will prevent unaided private schools from charging students for
activities that are not mentioned in the Act or its R&R. Examples would be
laboratory fee, computer fee, building fee, sports fee, fee for stationery, fee
for school uniform, fee for extra-curricular activities such as music,
painting, pottery, and so on.
7)
Norms for buildings, the number of
working days, teacher workload, equipment, library and extra-curricular
activities are prescribed only for unaided schools, and not for other schools
including government schools. Only an obligatory teacher-student ratio is
prescribed both for government and unaided schools. This means that as long as
the teacher-pupil ratio is maintained, the school would be considered as fit.
Thus, even if a government school has 12 students in each class from I to V, it
will have only two teachers.
8)
Two arguments often given for continuing
to have, or even encouraging, private unaided schools is that the government
has no money to set up the needed schools, and that government schools cannot
be run as well as private schools. Both these are deliberate lies. There have
been excellent studies and reports that show that the government can find money
to adopt a common school system with a provision of compulsory and totally free
education up to Class XII in the country over the next 10 years. Further, even
today the best system of school education in the country is the Central School
(Kendriya Vidyalaya) system run by the government. The country needs 400,000
such schools, and India can afford it.
Conclusion
It
has been pointed out that the concept in RTE act is not new. Universal adult franchise
in the constitution was opposed since most of the population was illiterate.
Article 45 in the Constitution of India was set up as a compromise.
It
was envisaged that the State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten
years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years. As
that deadline was about to be passed many decades ago in 1964, the then education minister, M C Chagla
has said:
“Our Constitution fathers did not intend that
we just set up hovels, put students there, give untrained teachers, give them
bad textbooks, no playgrounds, and say, we have complied with Article 45 and
primary education is expanding... They meant that real education should be
given to our children between the ages of 6 and 14.”
In
the 1990s, the World Bank funded a number of measures to set up schools within easy
reach of rural communities. This effort was consolidated in the Sarva Shiksha
Abbhiyan model in the 1990s. RTE takes the process further, and makes the
enrollment of children in schools a state prerogative.
The
question arises as to how this gigantic project would be implemented. The
population of the country has considerably increased and the number of children
of age from 6 to 14 years are in crores. The government does not have money at
present, to run its own educational institutions. In the area of education it
is emphasizing on privatization. Majority of the higher secondary schools are
run private persons where there is no provision for free education. They charge high fee. Only rich persons can afford to send their
children to these schools. When the education will become a fundamental right a
citizen would go to the court for enforcement of his right and the Court would
be obliged to give an order for its enforcement. But if there are no schools how would the
government implement it? Making
education compulsory would not solve the problem. The only alternative is to encourage
non-government organizations to come forward and participate in it to fulfill
the mandate of the Constitution. Of course, the government must help them and
see that teachers and employees working in these private educational
institutions get minimum salary to survive and make the scheme successful.
In
the absence of these initiatives, it is doubtful that the constitutional
mandate to provide free education to all children in order to become able
citizens of the country would be successful. Private public schools have become
centers for exploitation.
[Published in Supreme Court Journal
/ Weekly
December 2010, Part – 50]
No comments:
Post a Comment