PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION : Right to Education Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION : Right to Education Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Bombay  High  Court
                                                             1 of 5                                         PIL.105.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.105 OF 2013
Arun Digambar Joshi Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mr.Samir A. Kumbhakoni for Petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Shinde, GP with Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP for State.
CORAM :  DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
         S.C.GUPTE, JJ.
DATE     :   11 July 2013
PC  :
1. The Petitioner who is stated to be a director of an educational
institution at  Solapur  and in the field of  education for  nearly forty
three years, has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16 of
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,  2009
(`The Right to Education Act').  Section 16 of the Right to Education
Act provides as follows :
"S.16  :   Prohibition of holding back and expulsion  :
No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any
class  or  expelled  from school  till  the  completion  of
elementary education."
The contention of the Petitioner is that  the restraint against  holding
back a child admitted to a school in any class till the completion of
elementary education,  has resulted in a deterioration of  educational
                                                                                                                
:                                                             2 of 5                                         PIL.105.2013
standards.  On this ground, it has been urged that the restraint that has
been  enacted  in  Section  16  is  violative  of  Article  21A of  the
Constitution.
2. The Right to Education Act was enacted in order to provide for
free and compulsory education to all the children between the ages 6
and 14.  Article 21A of the Constitution was inserted by the Eighty
Sixth Amendment in 2002.  Article 21 A stipulates that the State shall
provide free and compulsory education to all the children between the
ages 6 and 14 in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine.
The  Act  defines  `elementary  education'  in  Section  2(f)  to  mean
education from the first class to the eighth class.  A `child' is defined
by Section 2(c) to mean a male or female child of the age of six to
fourteen years.   Section 3 provides a right  of  free and compulsory
education to every child in a neighbourhood school till the completion
of elementary education.   Section 8 casts a duty on the appropriate
Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education to
every child.   Similar duties are cast  on every local  authority under
Section 9.
3. The prohibition which has been enacted in Section 16 of the
Act  against  holding back a child and the expulsion of a child from
school until the completion of elementary education, is in pursuance
of  the legislative policy of  ensuring universal  access to elementary
education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen.  A child
who is  held back for  want  of  an adequate `performance',  assessed
generally with reference to conventional evaluation methods such as
                                                                                                                
:                                                            3 of 5                                         PIL.105.2013
examinations is placed in a position of disadvantage in relation to his
or her peers.  A child who is held back and not allowed to progress to
the  next  standard  suffers  from an  intense  psychological  trauma
resulting in a loss of self worth by being unable to attain the same
level  of proficiency as his or her peers and friends.   This does not
reflect a failure of the child but the inability of the teacher to address
the needs of  the child.   The child is being conditioned by a social
system which provides a disadvantaged environment.  The Act  casts
an  obligation  on  teachers  in  Section  24(d)  to  assess  the  learning
ability  of  each  child  and  to  accordingly  supplement  additional
instructions as are required.   The Act  casts obligations on the State
and  upon  local  authorities,  schools  and  teachers  to  contribute  in
providing  meaningful  access  to  primary  education  on  a  universal
basis to all children between the ages of six and fourteen until they
complete  elementary  education.   The  obligation  of  doing  so  is
assumed by the State.   As a necessary corollary,  a child who is a
victim of  a social  handicap,  is  protected against  the imposition of
measures such as holding back or expulsion, which are liable to result
in a loss of identity and add to prejudices.   Children constitute the
building  blocks  of  society  and  define  the  future  of  the  nation.
Impressionable and vulnerable,  children have to be moulded for the
future  by  allowing  them to  grow  up  in  an  environment  which
promotes creativity, encourages a search for their intrinsic talents and
fosters respect  for diversity and inclusion.   To hold back a child or
expel a child from elementary school is wrong because it transfers the
duty  of  an  enabling  school  environment  from the  teacher  to  the
taught.  On the contrary, to render the Act responsive to the needs of
                                                                                                                
                                                            4 of 5                                         PIL.105.2013
our young, teachers have to be evaluated periodically and their skills
have to be upgraded by the State by a continuous process of learning.
Far  from  violating  Article  21A,  as  the  Petitioner  asserts,  the
provisions of Section 16 advance its object.
4. It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  in  many  cases
children are held back as a result  of the inability of the parents to
shoulder  the  financial  burden of  education for  the  children in the
family.   Parliament was evidently conscious of these social  realities
and the provision has, therefore, been carefully enacted to ensure that
children are not victims of an unequal social system.  If a child needs
special attention, a duty is cast upon the teacher and the institution to
take all measures.  The underlying principle is that a child should not
be penalized for a situation on which he or she possibly can have no
control.   The submission that  this would lead to a deterioration of
academic  standards,  is  untenable.   First  and  foremost,  the  term
"academic standards" is itself capable of more than one meaning and
content.  To assess education merely in terms of the proficiency in an
examination is to adopt  an extremely narrow view of the object  of
education.   Education  particularly  at  the  elementary  level  must
emphasise the need to encourage a child into a holistic pattern of
development which is ethical and value based.
5. For these reasons, we are of the view that the policy which is
embodied in Section 16 was  one which fell  within the domain of
Parliament  as an enacting body.   It  would be impermissible for the
Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction to reassess the wisdom of
                                                                                                                
::
                                                             5 of 5                                         PIL.105.2013
the policy adopted by the Parliament which in any event is both fair
and proper. We are, however, of the view that the State must ensure a
process  of  continuous  evaluation  of  teachers  and  put  in  place  a
scheme  for  upgrading  skills  for  teachers.  For  these  reasons,  we
dismiss the petition.  There shall be no order as to costs.
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
            (S.C.GUPTE, J.)
MST
                                                                                                                
Source : http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenew.php?path=./data/judgements/2013/&fname=CPIL1480713.pdf&smflag=N