New Delhi: In a significant ruling for inclusive education, the Delhi High Court has rejected a private school’s plea against a single-judge bench order to readmit an eight-year-old autistic child ousted on grounds that she exhibited aggression towards students and staff.
Rejecting G.D. Goenka Public School’s appeal Tuesday, a division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the approach adopted by the school in ousting the child was a complete violation of various mandates of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 of the RPwD Act.
The 31-page order reinforced that educational institutions, whether funded or just recognised by the government, are obligated to provide an inclusive environment and necessary support for students with disabilities.
The school’s appeal before this bench challenged the single-judge bench order issued on 1 July which had directed the school to readmit the child to Class I or an age-appropriate class as a fee-paying student.
Pertinently, the single judge’s order permitted the child to attend school with the assistance of a parent-appointed shadow teacher, subject to the school’s basic norms of decorum and safety.
The division bench also mandated the Department of Education (DoE) to monitor the child’s reintegration and ensure the school provides a non-discriminatory environment in line with Sections 3 and 16 of the RPwD Act. The school has been directed to comply with the judgment within two weeks.
When ThePrint reached school’s counsel Kamal Gupta, who has a practice of 18 years in Delhi, for a comment, he said the school stressed on the safety of the 50 other students in the classroom. “The child’s behaviour with the mother (as analysed by the committee) is different but when she is with friends—she was different. Sometimes, the courts go overboard with the inclusivity and empathy.”
Core of the dispute
The girl, born in May 2017, experienced delayed developmental milestones. In November 2019, she was suspected to be suffering from autism and thereafter, underwent therapy, which stopped amid the Covid pandemic. She was admitted to G.D. Goenka Public School for the Academic Session 2021-2022 under the “sibling clause”.
The school claimed that at the time of the admission, there was no disclosure of any disabilities in the admission form. A non-disclosure “would have ordinarily led to a cancellation of admission”, the school said.
However, the school said, it decided to accommodate her in line with its “inclusive education policy”.
But, the court was informed the child was not born with autism, it was only in December 2021 that she was diagnosed with mild autism. When offline classes resumed in April 2022, the parents submitted the diagnosis and assessment reports.
Subsequently, the school raised concerns, alleging that the child exhibited “severe behavioural issues, including aggression towards staff and students, as well as disruptive behaviour”. The parents’ request for a shadow teacher or special educator was not allowed by the school.
The mother told the court that her child was ousted from the school effective 1 January 2023 though her fees were paid until March 2023.
However, according to the school, the parents “voluntarily withdrew” the child on 14 December 2022 following discussions about safety concerns, leading to a discontinuation of her education from 1 January 2023.
G.D. Goenka Public School said the cessation of the child’s enrollment stemmed from concerns that arose after offline classes resumed in April 2022, and the parents disclosed she was diagnosed with mild autism in December 2021.
The school claimed that despite several interventions and multiple meetings with the parents, the child’s behavior did not improve. These issues, coupled with “safety concerns associated with her behaviour”, including the “risk of self harm”, led to the discussions that culminated in her “withdrawal”, according to the school.
The court, however, later observed that the behavioral issues flagged by the school should have “triggered support rather than invoking apprehensions”.
This situation led to the denial of the girl’s re enrollment in Class I in the 2024-2025 academic year, prompting her parents to file the writ petition.
Expert committees validate inclusion
To address the school’s concerns regarding the child’s suitability for an integrated setting, both the single bench as well as the division bench constituted expert bodies.
An initial board appointed by the single-judge bench recommended that the child was suitable to study in the present school (or integrated school) with “shadow teacher’s support”.
Since the school raised apprehension about re-admitting the child when it argued the appeal, the high court constituted a second expert committee 5 August to clinically examine and evaluate the girl child again.
This committee was headed by Dr. Shahzadi Malhotra, associate professor of clinical psychology at the Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS), and included a clinical psychologist, an occupational therapist, the school counsellor, and the child’s mother.
The IHBAS clinical assessment, using standardised tools like the Indian Scale for Assessment of Autism (ISAA), confirmed mild autism.
In its response to the court, the committee opined “the child’s attention could be aroused and sustained for adequate duration that was required for the instructions that were being given to her”.
She could follow commands and comprehend the given instructions. She gave intermittent eye contact to the Clinical Psychologist assessing her, the panel said.
The child herself asked for a sheet of paper, pencil and colours, and during the entire duration of the session (each lasting for approximately one-and-a-half hours), she could keep herself occupied in various paper-pencil activities, the report added.
“Once one sheet of paper was over, she demanded for another so as to continue with her tasks. She did not leave the tasks without completing them. She also responded to verbal questions being asked to her by the clinician,” according to the report.
Despite apprehensions raised by the school counsellor, who focused on incidents that occurred “nearly three years ago”—when the child, according to the school, showed aggression towards staff and students, as well as disruptive behaviour—the expert team unanimously recommended that the child “can be placed in the appellant school (or any inclusive school), along with a Shadow Teacher attached with the child, initially during the entire school hours”.
The committee’s chairperson said the shadow teacher’s role is that of a companion, facilitator, motivator, partner, and role model who supports the child’s adjustment to the school environment and between the school, her peers, and herself.
The court accepted this expert opinion without “an iota of doubt”.
The legal imperative
The high court heavily relied on the comprehensive mandates of the RPwD Act, 2016, noting that the school’s denial reflected a “non-cooperative approach” and an institutional failure to evolve in consonance with the child’s needs.
The judgment underscored several key legal principles.
The RPwD Act defines “inclusive education” as a system where students with and without disability learn together, and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted. Section 16 makes it obligatory on all educational institutions, whether funded or recognised, to provide inclusive education and admit children with disabilities without discrimination.
Furthermore, section 3 of the act, as noted by the court, mandates that persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality and life with dignity, and there is no discrimination on the ground of disability.
The court also reiterated that the right to inclusive education is realised through “reasonable accommodation”, defined as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that do not impose a disproportionate burden. The educational institution must provide necessary support, individualised or otherwise, in an environment that maximises academic and social development consistent with full inclusion.
Furthermore, the court observed, educational institutions have a mandate under Section 16(vi) to detect specific learning disabilities early and take suitable pedagogical and other measures to overcome them.
The division bench thus concluded the school’s stand was legally unsustainable, and directed compliance with the single judge’s order for the immediate re-admission and necessary support for the child within two weeks.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Infra & safety gaps to poor digital learning record, what Centre’s index says about Bengal schools