In a setback to private schools in Delhi, the High Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking stay on fresh nursery admission guidelines issued by the Lieutenant Governor.

Acting on a plea by the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private Schools, which sought setting aside of the 2014-15 guidelines on the ground that the office of the LG lacked the power to frame them, the court has sought city govt’s reply on the matter.

In its plea, the Action Committee had claimed the guidelines were against the principle of autonomy and the recognized unaided private schools were given the power by the Central government to formulate their own admission criteria for 75 percent seats.

Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, on 18 December, issued new guidelines for the nursery admissions for the session 2014-15 and took various steps such as scrapping of 20 per cent management quota.

The neighborhood criteria, which seeks schools to give preference to children living within the radius of 6 kilometer from school, has been given maximum weightage with 70 points out of 100 in the open category seats. Later, the LG enhanced the criteria to eight kilometre.

The LG, however, had refused to the decision to scrap the management quota.

Besides these, the applicants who have sibling studying in the same school will get 20 points and five points will be added by default in the application of girls and wards of school alumni.

The guidelines also seek the minority schools to have 25 per cent seats reserved, like other schools, for the economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups of the society.

The DoE or the Delhi government or the LG does not have the power to fix criteria of admission in unaided private schools, the petition said.

The admission process for nursery classes will start from 15 January and the last date for submission of applications is fixed on January 31.

Emphasising on the need for authenticity in the collection of statistics, President Pranab Mukherjee said that good data was important as its analysis plays a key role in shaping national policies.

“The efficacy of our policies, especially in the social sector, hinges on the quality of data collected by different government agencies. Good policies call for good data standards,” he said.

“Great emphasis must, therefore, be laid on the authenticity of the information gathered so as to form the basis of policy intervention,” Mukherjee told the 48th Convocation of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) here.

The President said that the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, seeks to facilitate the collection of data on several socio-economic and other parameters.

It is the collective responsibility of the citizens and the seekers of information under this Act to ensure that correct and adequate statistics are furnished, he said.

The President advised exercise of due caution in analysing large data and drawing inferences.

“Capturing unstructured data and converting them into a structured format are technically challenging problems. They have to pursued in an enlightened manner.

“Drawing inferences call for adequate scrutiny of the theory requiring combined knowledge of the statistician and the subject expert,” he said.

“Enhanced capability of analysing large data had a positive act in our ability to formulate effective public policies as well improving transparency to ensure last mile connectivity,” he said.

Mukherjee said that improved ability to analyse data had led to an improvement in weather forecasting systems.

He said data mining and statistical techniques had been used to initiate counter terrorism programmes.

The Supreme Court said Friday that someone whose name does not figure either in an FIR or a chargesheet but whose role in an alleged crime surfaces during the course of a trial would be subjected to the said trial.

A constitution bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam, Justice BS Chauhan, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SA Bobde said that the evidence against such an accused would be sufficient when evidence was being recorded and not at the stage of cross-examination of witnesses.

The court observation came while addressing five questions referred to it by a three- judge bench Dec 8, 2011, on the stage at which Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would come into play to try a person whose role in a crime surfaces during the course of a trial and at what stage would the evidence be read against such an accused.

Section 319 of the CrPC spells out the proviso for the joint trial of a person, who though not been named as an accused, appears, during the course of investigation or trial, to have committed a crime.

“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed,” Section 319 (1) says.

The five questions addressed the constitution bench were:

* At what stage can the power under Section 319 can be exercised?

* Does the word “evidence” used in Section 319 (1) only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or can the court exercise this power even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?

* Has the word “evidence” in Section 319 (1) been used in a comprehensive sense and does it include the evidence collected during the investigation or is it limited to the evidence recorded during the trial?

* What is the nature of satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 to arraign an accused? Can this power be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will, in all likelihood, be convicted?

* Does the power under Section 319 extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?