The Karnataka High Court recently emphasized the significance of the matter concerning students having to carry heavy school bags.
The court granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw a vague Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed on the subject and allowed for the filing of a fresh petition containing the necessary information.
The petitioner approached the court, alleging that the School Bag Policy of India 2020, implemented by the Central government, was not being enforced in Karnataka. This policy outlines weight limits for students’ school bags.
A division bench of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice MGS Kamal recognized the importance of the issue raised in the petition. However, they declined to consider the plea due to its lack of specific information and reliance on vague statements.
“Court gives petitioner permission to withdraw the PIL with liberty to file a fresh PIL with all requisite information,” the bench stated.
The petitioner asserted that the policy was obligatory for all states to adhere to. Additionally, the petitioner informed the court that he had made representations to the state authorities to address the matter, but his efforts were unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, the court observed that the petitioner had not taken necessary measures to gather all the required information in the plea.
“So, the issue as submitted is certainly of importance. We found that except making statements in the petition and submitting reps to authority with vague statements, the petitioner failed to take any serious steps and necessary material … The petitioner orally submitted that he personally visited some schools and found that small children are carrying heavy bags in various locations. The statement is as vague as it could be. There are no details of which schools. Details are also not provided in the email / representation,” the bench observed.
Hence, the court decided to dismiss the petition. However, upon the petitioner’s request for permission to withdraw the petition and file a new plea containing comprehensive information, the court granted the petitioner’s request.
