New Delhi: Underlining that it’s the obligation of private neighbourhood schools to admit at least 25 percent children from weaker and disadvantaged sections, the Supreme Court issued a slew of guidelines Tuesday for these institutions to implement the mandate of Section 12(c) of the Right to Education Act.
Section 12(1) (c) of the RTE Act states that private unaided institutions and special category schools must provide free and compulsory education to at least 25 percent children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections admitted to Class I or pre-primary classes.
Such schools would be entitled to reimbursement by the government at the per-child cost incurred, according to the Act.
However, residential private-unaided schools which do not start at Class I are exempt.
The two-judge bench of justices P. S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar issued the guidelines while hearing a plea by a man from Maharashtra who had challenged the Bombay HC order rejecting his petition against a private school.
Some of the guidelines laid out by the court included setting up portals and helpdesks dedicated to ensuring a transparent admission process, directing schools to publish the number of seats available for such children much before the application stage begins, and setting up dispute settlement committees.
The court also said it should be ensured that all states and union territories implement this section of the RTE Act.
“The obligation of a neighbourhood school to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of our society to the extent of twenty-five percent of the class strength, under Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society,” the court said in its 23-page ruling.
The bench added, “We are of the opinion that it is necessary and compelling to formulate subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations, prescribing the method and manner in which children of weaker and disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighborhood schools.”
The court also added that without enforceable rule and regulations, the objectives of Article 21A and Section 12(1)(c) would be dead letter.
Pointing out that the RTE’s earnest implementation can truly be transformative, the court said the Act’s implementation is not just a step towards educating young India but also a substantive measure in securing equality of status, which has been enshrined in the Preamble.
It’s because of a law like the RTE, observed the court, that it becomes normatively and structurally possible for the child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor to sit in the same classroom and bench as the child of a multi- millionaire or a judge.
‘We are of opinion that it is necessary & compelling to formulate subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules & regulations, prescribing method & manner in which children of weaker & disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighborhood schools’, says SC bench.
The right to free and compulsory education has been outlined under Article 21A of the Constitution, and under Section 3 of the RTE Act, the court said, adding that it’s important for these provisions to be implemented as well.
“Equally, courts, be it constitutional or civil, must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of the denial of the right,” the court said in its January 13 ruling.
Also Read: Huge surge in minority institutions after RTE Act. Even DPS Bengaluru became one to avoid quota
What was the case about?
The case dates back to 2016 when a man, named Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar, had approached a neighbourhood school for admitting his children under the RTE provision of free and compulsory education.
Dinesh said he learnt through a Right to Information (RTI) plea that the school had vacant seats, but it did not respond to his request for admitting his children, compelling him to move the Bombay High Court.
The HC rejected his plea on the ground that he had failed to take appropriate steps to admit his kids under the free seats quota.
The HC observed the man failed to apply according to the online procedure for filling up these seats.
In his plea, Dinesh said his home was within 3 kilometres of the neighborhood school, and that he had a letter from the deputy education officer recommending the admission of his children.
He also said he comes from a very poor background, and that 648 seats were still lying vacant, according to the information he had received in the RTI reply.
Fundamental Right to Education
In the present case, the court said that it is important to recognise that the Constitution declares elementary education as a fundamental right, as against many other liberties, which are in the nature of fundamental freedoms.
The court also said that the definition of a ‘school’ includes “any recognised school imparting education”. Government schools, aided schools receiving grants, and schools belonging to categories like the Kendriya Vidyalaya are all included under this definition, the court said.
It also pointed out that unaided schools not receiving any grants, will also be considered for the purpose of free and compulsory education.
The 25 percent inclusion under Section 12 is not an isolated welfare measure but a vehicle through which the constitutional commitment to fraternity and the “development of the child” as recognised in Article 21A and Article 39(f) is sought to be realised, the court said.
The court also noted that the emphasis on neighbourhood schools in this case was because the neighbourhood school system under the RTE Act envisages that each child must have access to a neighbourhood school and that such a system must be central to the project of democratising schooling and reducing entrenched social inequalities.
Finally, the court directed appropriate authorities to prepare and issue, in consultation with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCRs), and the National and State Advisory Councils, all necessary rules and regulations under the 2009 Act for implementing the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Huge surge in minority institutions after RTE Act. Even DPS Bengaluru became one to avoid quota