right to education became a fundamental right on the date of 64 ad.
right to education became a fundamental right on which date?
64 ad
the right of children to free and compulsory education act or right to education act (rte) is an act of the parliament of india enacted on 4 august 2009, which describes the modalities of the importance of free and compulsory education for children between the age of 6 to 14 years in india under article 21a of the indian constitution. 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 title of the rte act incorporates the words ‘free and compulsory’. ‘free education’ means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education. ‘compulsory education’ casts an obligation on the appropriate government and local authorities to provide and ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by all children in the 6-14 age group. with this, india has moved forward to a rights based framework that casts a legal obligation on the central and state governments to implement this fundamental child right as enshrined in the article 21a of the constitution, in accordance with the provisions of the rte act.17.
right of children to free and compulsory education act, 2009
on january 20, 2005, district court judge gary l. lancaster dropped the charges, agreeing with the defense that the federal anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional, as they violated a person's fundamental right to possess and view whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. as a fundamental right had been violated, the government had to establish that a compelling state interest was involved. the prosecution argued that the government had a legitimate interest in protecting adults from unwitting exposure to obscenity, and protecting children from exposure to obscenity. these arguments were rejected by the court, which also ruled that the federal obscenity laws were not narrow enough to meet these interests, and could not justify a complete ban on obscene material. lancaster ruled that children and unwitting adults are protected from the content because the website requires a credit card to join, and because software is available by which parents can restrict children's access to internet pornography. the court did agree with the government that "lawrence" had not created a new broad fundamental right to engage in any private sexual conduct. instead the court relied on "stanley", which had established there was a fundamental right to private possession of obscene material. the court did rely on "lawrence" for its assertion that the government could not use public morality as a legitimate state interest which justified the infringement of consensual, adult, private sexual conduct. the court also made reference to the dissenting opinion of justice scalia, who said that "lawrence" had questioned the validity of u.s. obscenity laws, since the government could not enforce a moral code of conduct. judge lancaster also cited numerous constitutional scholars who had observed that the "lawrence" ruling calls federal obscenity laws into question.
united states v. extreme associates, inc.