SOCIAL JURIST
A Civil Rights Group
03.12.2009
To,
Hon’ble Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely,
Education Minister
Govt. of GNCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002
Sub: - Govt. School expels 12 year old student in violation of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Dear Shri Arvinder Singh ji,
It is brought to your kind notice that Master Ajay, a student of VI-C of Govt. Sr. Secondary School No.1 (boys) (second shift), Model Town-III, Delhi is not being allowed to attend classes by the principal of the school Shri Kishan Bhardwaj (Phone no 01127456108) saying that his name has been removed from the rolls of the school & under no circumstance, he would be readmitted in the school.
Master Ajay belongs to slum area of Lal Bagh & because of some family turmoil & problems, he was absent from 5th August’2009 onwards for almost 3 weeks at a stretch & because of this, his name was deleted from the roll call register. However, Ajay keeps on attending classes merely because of his interest in studies after that also and no one in the school objected to that. That again, because of disturbances & problems in the family of Ajay, his elder brother named Ajeet (20 years) died by committing suicide on 29 October 2009.
It is submitted that the last cremation and other rituals were performed by Ajay only as per his family wishes. But this again has great impact on this child’s mind now. So, to keep him engaged in studies, his parents (both laborers) want to readmit him in the school. The parents took the child to the school but the principal was adamant to readmit Ajay.
The parents of Ajay met Shri Nirbhay Narula (mob no. - 9810020302), a RETF volunteer about 15 days ago & brought to his notice the above facts. Mr. Nirbhay Narula immediately went to the school along with Ajay & his parents and met the principal appraising him with all the situation & happenings with Ajay. But, the principal flatly refused to readmit Ajay. Thereafter, Mr. Nirbhay Narula sent me an e-mail bringing to my notice the aforesaid facts.
On 12/1/2009, I sent an e-mail to Shri Rakesh Mohan, Secretary of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi bringing to his notice the aforementioned facts and requesting him to do the needful on urgent basis. However, nothing has been done on the matter till date.
You are well aware of the fact that the right to education is a fundamental right of every child under the Constitution. Article 21-A mandates the State to provide free & compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6-14 years. Moreover, the Delhi Schools Education Act, 1973 the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prohibit the school to expel or rusticate any student below the age of 14 years on any ground. Section-16 of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education, 2009 is reproduced as under:-
“No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or
expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.”
Since Ajay is only 12 years old, the school was totally unjustified in refusing to readmit him in the school. In fact Ajay is also entitled to compensation from the school for violation of his fundamental right to education as guaranteed under articles 21 & 21-A of the Constitution of India.
It is, therefore, requested that necessary directions may be kindly issued to the school to readmit Ajay immediately and allow him to pursue his education further.
With Regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate,
Advisor, Social Jurist,
Mob. No- 09811101923
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Contempt Notice - No Annual Report Cards To 8 Lacs Students of Mcd Schools
15.05.2009
To
The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall Chandni Chowk
Delhi- 110006
Sub: Contempt Notice – No Annual Report Cards to 8 lacs students of MCD Schools
Dear Sir,
Take notice that a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Social Jurist vs.Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) 3507 of 2000] has passed the following Orders on July 7, 2006:-
“ORDER
07/04/2006
Present Mr. Ashok Agarwal for Petitioner
Mr. Tarun Sharma for Respondent
CM-8094/2006
This is an application filed by the petitioner interalia stating that MCD Schools are not making any assessment of students progress up to grade five and are not providing report cards or any evidence what so ever of the child having attended School. It has been contended before us by Mr. Agarwal that in the absence of any Report Card there is no incentive to learn as merit will not be recognized or rewarded. Even the parents will have no material before them to understand whether their child is doing well or not. Even intense relationship between the teachers and students may be hampered if the teachers hardly knows the names of children and there is no personal touch in the classroom and this will lead to a tendency where even 100 or 125 children can be clustered into the classrooms with no provision of chairs or tables and the individual needs for better performance neither can be monitored nor can be looked after by a teacher in such a situation. Therefore, in view of the fact that about million children are studying in the MCD Schools in 1854 schools and no Report Cards are maintained, we direct the Additional Commissioner, MCD to ensure, that a report card for these tiny tots going to the primary schools be maintained on the pattern of the progress report cards which are issued by other private schools in order to achieve the objects which we have highlighted above. The time to be taken for issuance of report cards be also indicated in the status report which we have directed to be filed by the MCD. The efforts should be made
by the Additional Commissioner, MCD and the Director of Education to start the report cards from the current academic year itself. (Application stands disposed)
WP(C) No. 3507/2000
Counsel for the respondent says that he will personally go to the school as pathetic condition which has been demonstrated in the photographs has been brought to our notice. We are surprised to see that after 60 years of independence the MCD schools are running in tents and the appalling conditions under which the future generation of this country is taking education. Steps be taken to immediately improve the conditions. Let status report be filed along with the affidavit of Additional Commissioner, MCD, within four weeks. The status report also indicate as to how many schools are running in tents by the MCD.
Renotify on 23.08.2006
July 07, 2006
Acting Chief Justice
Kailash Gambhir J”
In terms of the aforesaid Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, you were obliged to ensure that report cards are issued to all the students of all the MCD Primary Schools regularly. However, in utter disobedience of the said Orders, in the academic year 2008-2009, no student of Classes I to IV has been issued annual report card by any MCD Primary School throughout the city. Thus, nearly eight lacs students of Classes I to IV of MCD Primary Schools have not received their Annual Report Cards till date. It is no less a criminal negligence besides being deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It also reflects that the MCD authorities are totally apathetic to the educational needs of the students.
We have received written complaints from the parents of several students of class I to IV studying in MCD run schools complaining that their wards have not been provided with the Annual Report Cards for the academic year 2008-09. Copies of some of these complaints are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
One of the parents, namely, Masood (Mob.9958914898) of student Farman of Class V passed from the MCD Primary School, Photo Chowk, Welcome, Delhi has even complained that the class teacher demanded Rs.200/- for providing Annual Report Card to Farman., which he got only after payment of Rs.100/-.
Nathia (Mob.9999017324) has complained that her son Taleeb has been promoted from Class I to Class II by the MCD Primary School, Shastri Park but Taleeb has not been provided with Annual Report Card by the School. Similarly Meerhasan (Mob. 9999017324) has complained that his daughter Shehanaz studying in MCD Primary School, Shastri Park has been Promoted from Class I to II, but she has not be given the Annual Report Card. Sharif (9971926819) father of Master Rehan has complained that his son is studying in MCD Primary School, Shashtri Park and has been promoted from Class IV to V but he was denied Annual Report Card saying that the School has not received the printed report cards from the MCD office. Shri Anees (Mob.9250697984) has complaint that his two wards are studying in MCD Primary School, near Seelampur Gurudwara and their wards have not been provided with annual Report Cards by the school.
It is submitted that the non providing of annual report cards to the students violates the human and fundamental right to education of the students as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Take notice that you are the authority responsible for the implementation of the aforesaid Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated July 7, 2006. Failure on your part to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court tentamounts to contempt of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which attract penal action against you.
With regards,
To
The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall Chandni Chowk
Delhi- 110006
Sub: Contempt Notice – No Annual Report Cards to 8 lacs students of MCD Schools
Dear Sir,
Take notice that a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Social Jurist vs.Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) 3507 of 2000] has passed the following Orders on July 7, 2006:-
“ORDER
07/04/2006
Present Mr. Ashok Agarwal for Petitioner
Mr. Tarun Sharma for Respondent
CM-8094/2006
This is an application filed by the petitioner interalia stating that MCD Schools are not making any assessment of students progress up to grade five and are not providing report cards or any evidence what so ever of the child having attended School. It has been contended before us by Mr. Agarwal that in the absence of any Report Card there is no incentive to learn as merit will not be recognized or rewarded. Even the parents will have no material before them to understand whether their child is doing well or not. Even intense relationship between the teachers and students may be hampered if the teachers hardly knows the names of children and there is no personal touch in the classroom and this will lead to a tendency where even 100 or 125 children can be clustered into the classrooms with no provision of chairs or tables and the individual needs for better performance neither can be monitored nor can be looked after by a teacher in such a situation. Therefore, in view of the fact that about million children are studying in the MCD Schools in 1854 schools and no Report Cards are maintained, we direct the Additional Commissioner, MCD to ensure, that a report card for these tiny tots going to the primary schools be maintained on the pattern of the progress report cards which are issued by other private schools in order to achieve the objects which we have highlighted above. The time to be taken for issuance of report cards be also indicated in the status report which we have directed to be filed by the MCD. The efforts should be made
by the Additional Commissioner, MCD and the Director of Education to start the report cards from the current academic year itself. (Application stands disposed)
WP(C) No. 3507/2000
Counsel for the respondent says that he will personally go to the school as pathetic condition which has been demonstrated in the photographs has been brought to our notice. We are surprised to see that after 60 years of independence the MCD schools are running in tents and the appalling conditions under which the future generation of this country is taking education. Steps be taken to immediately improve the conditions. Let status report be filed along with the affidavit of Additional Commissioner, MCD, within four weeks. The status report also indicate as to how many schools are running in tents by the MCD.
Renotify on 23.08.2006
July 07, 2006
Acting Chief Justice
Kailash Gambhir J”
In terms of the aforesaid Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, you were obliged to ensure that report cards are issued to all the students of all the MCD Primary Schools regularly. However, in utter disobedience of the said Orders, in the academic year 2008-2009, no student of Classes I to IV has been issued annual report card by any MCD Primary School throughout the city. Thus, nearly eight lacs students of Classes I to IV of MCD Primary Schools have not received their Annual Report Cards till date. It is no less a criminal negligence besides being deliberate disobedience of the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It also reflects that the MCD authorities are totally apathetic to the educational needs of the students.
We have received written complaints from the parents of several students of class I to IV studying in MCD run schools complaining that their wards have not been provided with the Annual Report Cards for the academic year 2008-09. Copies of some of these complaints are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
One of the parents, namely, Masood (Mob.9958914898) of student Farman of Class V passed from the MCD Primary School, Photo Chowk, Welcome, Delhi has even complained that the class teacher demanded Rs.200/- for providing Annual Report Card to Farman., which he got only after payment of Rs.100/-.
Nathia (Mob.9999017324) has complained that her son Taleeb has been promoted from Class I to Class II by the MCD Primary School, Shastri Park but Taleeb has not been provided with Annual Report Card by the School. Similarly Meerhasan (Mob. 9999017324) has complained that his daughter Shehanaz studying in MCD Primary School, Shastri Park has been Promoted from Class I to II, but she has not be given the Annual Report Card. Sharif (9971926819) father of Master Rehan has complained that his son is studying in MCD Primary School, Shashtri Park and has been promoted from Class IV to V but he was denied Annual Report Card saying that the School has not received the printed report cards from the MCD office. Shri Anees (Mob.9250697984) has complaint that his two wards are studying in MCD Primary School, near Seelampur Gurudwara and their wards have not been provided with annual Report Cards by the school.
It is submitted that the non providing of annual report cards to the students violates the human and fundamental right to education of the students as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Take notice that you are the authority responsible for the implementation of the aforesaid Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated July 7, 2006. Failure on your part to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court tentamounts to contempt of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which attract penal action against you.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-09811101923
Sunday, March 22, 2009
SCHOOL LAW HELPLINE
Right to Education Task Force (RETF) is a group of volunteers intervening into the matter of complaints of parents, students and social activists etc. relating to the problems involving violation of child rights being faced by the students/parents with private as well as with government schools primarily in Delhi, and also in other states/union territories of India. The complaints are handled by the legal experts. All services are totally voluntary & free of cost. One can write to RETF at Email: socialjurist@socialjurist.com and/or to The Convener, Right to Education Task Force, 478-479, Lawyers Chambers, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 (India). Complaints can also be lodged at HELPLINES- 09811101923, 011-23384000, 09868529459.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Convener, RETF
M-09811101923
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Convener, RETF
M-09811101923
Saturday, March 14, 2009
YEH KAISI AASTHA? (WHAT KIND OF FAITH IT IS?)
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at about 12.30 pm in front of a Hindu Temple near Deepali Chowk, Outer Ring Road, North-West Delhi, India several tender age children can be seen rolling themselves on the summer hot road under the dictates of their parents covering distance of around 200 meters in order to reach at the gate of the temple to offer prayers to the Hindu deity. These tender age children are the children of the people of the poor and marginalized sections. The parents are literally forcing them to adopt such inhuman and derogatory practice in the hope & belief of being awarded with material prosperity so to compete with the rest of the world. Interestingly, hundreds of passing by rich and wealthy sections of people are just not interested in the world of these poor and unfortunate children.
Mob- 09811101923
Monday, March 9, 2009
COURT PULLS UP POSTMASTER OVER PERSISTENT MAIL DELAYS
BY OUR CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Nov. 27: The Delhi high court on Monday, gave a week to the postmaster general of Delhi to explain the delay in delivery of mail that has been piling in different sorting offices here.
A division bench comprising justice Mohinder Narain and justice Cyriac Joseph also directed postmaster general, Ms Padma Balasubramaniam, to be present on the next hearing on December 8.
The bench also issued directions to send letters of request to the editors of The Times of India and The Pioneer newspapers to submit the photographs of piling mail bags carried in their city’s edition.
The bench also requested Zee television to submit a copy of the video tape of the programme on the postal delay, recently telecast by them.
The Delhi high court had issued notices on November 23 to the Union government, the director general of post and telegraph and New Delhi’s postmaster general to explain why a public interest petitioner filed by a Delhi resident, Mr. S.P. Singh, on the continued delay in postal delivery should not be admitted for hearing. The court had directed them to file their replies by Monday and had also asked the postmaster general to be present before the court on the next hearing.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the counsel for the petitioner, had alleged that over 50,000 mail bags were lying unsorted in different sorting offices of the postal department for the last six months. He had also submitted to the court that the postal department and other concerned agencies had failed to take action regarding the unnecessary delay in postal-delivery.
TIMES OF INDIA 28.11.1995
New Delhi, Nov. 27: The Delhi high court on Monday, gave a week to the postmaster general of Delhi to explain the delay in delivery of mail that has been piling in different sorting offices here.
A division bench comprising justice Mohinder Narain and justice Cyriac Joseph also directed postmaster general, Ms Padma Balasubramaniam, to be present on the next hearing on December 8.
The bench also issued directions to send letters of request to the editors of The Times of India and The Pioneer newspapers to submit the photographs of piling mail bags carried in their city’s edition.
The bench also requested Zee television to submit a copy of the video tape of the programme on the postal delay, recently telecast by them.
The Delhi high court had issued notices on November 23 to the Union government, the director general of post and telegraph and New Delhi’s postmaster general to explain why a public interest petitioner filed by a Delhi resident, Mr. S.P. Singh, on the continued delay in postal delivery should not be admitted for hearing. The court had directed them to file their replies by Monday and had also asked the postmaster general to be present before the court on the next hearing.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the counsel for the petitioner, had alleged that over 50,000 mail bags were lying unsorted in different sorting offices of the postal department for the last six months. He had also submitted to the court that the postal department and other concerned agencies had failed to take action regarding the unnecessary delay in postal-delivery.
TIMES OF INDIA 28.11.1995
DISCRIMINATION CHALLENGED
NEW DELHI, Dec, 6 (PTI) - The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India and others on a petition seeking equal pay for work of similar nature regardless of sex and classification of employees.
The petition, filed by Mr. Ashok Agarwal, an advocate contended that denial of equal pay because of classification of employees as regular, permanent, temporary, probationer, ad hoc, casual and the like was violative of provision of the Constitution.
The petition submitted that this denial of equal pay exited in a large number of undertakings of the Government. Local authorities, non-Government establishment and autonomous bodies.
THE HINUSTAN TIMES TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 1982
The petition, filed by Mr. Ashok Agarwal, an advocate contended that denial of equal pay because of classification of employees as regular, permanent, temporary, probationer, ad hoc, casual and the like was violative of provision of the Constitution.
The petition submitted that this denial of equal pay exited in a large number of undertakings of the Government. Local authorities, non-Government establishment and autonomous bodies.
THE HINUSTAN TIMES TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 1982
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL, 2008 FAILS THE TEST OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as RTE Bill, 2008) introduced by the Central Government in the Rajya Sabha on 15 December 2008 though appears to be a progressive legislation but on examination thereof, it is not difficult to conclude that the same does not stand the test of constitutional mandate guaranteed under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India.
Undoubtedly, some of the provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are laudable. Section 3 talks of right to free and compulsory education and admission in a neighbourhood school. Section 4 talks of admission of child in class appropriate to his or her age. Sections 8 & 9 talk of obligations of the government to provide compulsory education to children. Section 12 talks of obligation of the unaided recognised private schools to provide free seats to the extent of 25% to the children of the economically weaker sections. Section 13 (1) talks of “no capitation fee” and “no screening procedure” for admission. Section 14 talks of admission without insisting upon production of age proof. Section 16 talks of “no expulsion of a child”. Section 17 bans corporal punishment. Section 23 talks of formation of school management committees. Section 23 ensures recruitment of only qualified teachers. Section 25 talks of ensuring Pupil-Teacher Ratio as specified in the schedule. Section 32 talks of grievance redressal mechanism.
On the other hand, several provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are meant to legalise and to perpetuate the existing unjust and discriminatory school education system based on socio-economic status. Section 3 (b) defines “capitation fee” means any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school. The import of this provision is that a school is free to notify any amount of fee whether needed or not and once it is notified, it will be legal. The Bill does not provide any fee regulatory mechanism to check the menace of commercialisation of education. Moreover, the right of every child to receive free and compulsory education as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution does not depend on the capacity of the parents to afford fee or not. Therefore, every child whether studying in private or State-run school, is entitled to free education. The State should bear the entire expenses even of the children studying in private-run schools. On the other hand, Section 8 disentitles a child studying in such private school even to claim from the State the reimbursement of expenditure incurred.
Section 2 (n) instead of permitting only same category of schools for all the children, sanctifies different categories of schools for the children of different socio-economic status. Most objectionable is; “a school belonging to specified category”. Section 2 (p) defines “specified category” in relation to a school, means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik School or any other school having a distinct character which may be specified by notification, by the appropriate Government. How can you have such a specified category of school with ‘State Funding’ which does not provide equal opportunity to all the children in the matter of admission? That providing only 25% of seats to the children of weaker sections in such ‘specified category of school’ is a cruel joke.
Section 7 talks of sharing of financial responsibilities between the Centre and the States. It appears that the Central Government does not want to provide funds to the States uniformly. The State Governments cannot insist upon the Central Government to provide funds more than what is provided under Section 7 (3). The State Governments have been made responsible to provide funds for implementation of the Act. It is submitted that unless the Central Government takes upon itself to provide entire funds for the implementation of the Act, the object of the Act is not possible to be achieved, particularly when the State Governments have publicly declared their inability to implement the Act on account of paucity of funds.
Section 10 talks of duty of parents to admit his child in neighbourhood school. It is submitted that the duty of parent is alright but where is the duty of the State to bring the child to the school. The State has completely absolved itself of such duty. Section 13 (2) provides punishment with fine against a school, if it is found violating the provisions relating to ‘no capitation fee and screening procedure for admission’. Interestingly, the Central Government has lost sight of the fact that if a school is punished with fine; such amount of fine would simply be passed on by the school to the children by levying the same in the fee slip. It is submitted that thereby it is the child and not the school which would be punished. What is required is the punishment with imprisonment and not merely punishment with fine.
Section 26 permits the Government to keep the vacancies of the teachers unfilled up to 10% of the total sanctioned strength. It is a well known fact that on average 10 % of the teaching staff at a time remains on leave for one reason or another. Therefore, there is a need to have 10% extra teaching staff instead of reducing it by 10% as contemplated in the RTE Bill, 2008. Section 31 talks of monitoring of child’s right to education by NCPCR. Experience with all the Commissions including NCPCR is that all these Commissions work like the department of the Government. Moreover, the Government has not so far appointed full strength members in the NCPCR. It is submitted that the District Judge of every District in the country, should be entrusted with the work of monitoring of child’s right to education. I am conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Judges are already burdened with deciding so many pending cases but one can not lose sight of the fact that the right to education is a most precious human and fundamental right and any further delay in implementation of the same would be a great peril to the nation. The Bill does not at all talk of accountability of the authorities. Unless there are provisions for the penalties against the erring authorities similar to those available in the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is really doubtful if the authorities would honestly perform their tasks.
Our constitutional goal is to achieve casteless and classless society as has been highlighted by a seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in OBC reservation in educational institutions case. The Government should have brought a Bill which would have directions towards casteless and classless society. However, the Bill in the present form, on the other hand, perpetuates the inequality and unjust discrimination amongst the children in the matter of right to education. That while expressing the above concerns regarding the serious drawbacks of the RTE Bill, 2008 particularly when it fails the test of Constitutional mandate, it cannot be over emphasised that the Bill should not be delayed any further on account of need to have a more comprehensive national debate on the same in the interest of the future of the children.
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
-by Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Undoubtedly, some of the provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are laudable. Section 3 talks of right to free and compulsory education and admission in a neighbourhood school. Section 4 talks of admission of child in class appropriate to his or her age. Sections 8 & 9 talk of obligations of the government to provide compulsory education to children. Section 12 talks of obligation of the unaided recognised private schools to provide free seats to the extent of 25% to the children of the economically weaker sections. Section 13 (1) talks of “no capitation fee” and “no screening procedure” for admission. Section 14 talks of admission without insisting upon production of age proof. Section 16 talks of “no expulsion of a child”. Section 17 bans corporal punishment. Section 23 talks of formation of school management committees. Section 23 ensures recruitment of only qualified teachers. Section 25 talks of ensuring Pupil-Teacher Ratio as specified in the schedule. Section 32 talks of grievance redressal mechanism.
On the other hand, several provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are meant to legalise and to perpetuate the existing unjust and discriminatory school education system based on socio-economic status. Section 3 (b) defines “capitation fee” means any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school. The import of this provision is that a school is free to notify any amount of fee whether needed or not and once it is notified, it will be legal. The Bill does not provide any fee regulatory mechanism to check the menace of commercialisation of education. Moreover, the right of every child to receive free and compulsory education as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution does not depend on the capacity of the parents to afford fee or not. Therefore, every child whether studying in private or State-run school, is entitled to free education. The State should bear the entire expenses even of the children studying in private-run schools. On the other hand, Section 8 disentitles a child studying in such private school even to claim from the State the reimbursement of expenditure incurred.
Section 2 (n) instead of permitting only same category of schools for all the children, sanctifies different categories of schools for the children of different socio-economic status. Most objectionable is; “a school belonging to specified category”. Section 2 (p) defines “specified category” in relation to a school, means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik School or any other school having a distinct character which may be specified by notification, by the appropriate Government. How can you have such a specified category of school with ‘State Funding’ which does not provide equal opportunity to all the children in the matter of admission? That providing only 25% of seats to the children of weaker sections in such ‘specified category of school’ is a cruel joke.
Section 7 talks of sharing of financial responsibilities between the Centre and the States. It appears that the Central Government does not want to provide funds to the States uniformly. The State Governments cannot insist upon the Central Government to provide funds more than what is provided under Section 7 (3). The State Governments have been made responsible to provide funds for implementation of the Act. It is submitted that unless the Central Government takes upon itself to provide entire funds for the implementation of the Act, the object of the Act is not possible to be achieved, particularly when the State Governments have publicly declared their inability to implement the Act on account of paucity of funds.
Section 10 talks of duty of parents to admit his child in neighbourhood school. It is submitted that the duty of parent is alright but where is the duty of the State to bring the child to the school. The State has completely absolved itself of such duty. Section 13 (2) provides punishment with fine against a school, if it is found violating the provisions relating to ‘no capitation fee and screening procedure for admission’. Interestingly, the Central Government has lost sight of the fact that if a school is punished with fine; such amount of fine would simply be passed on by the school to the children by levying the same in the fee slip. It is submitted that thereby it is the child and not the school which would be punished. What is required is the punishment with imprisonment and not merely punishment with fine.
Section 26 permits the Government to keep the vacancies of the teachers unfilled up to 10% of the total sanctioned strength. It is a well known fact that on average 10 % of the teaching staff at a time remains on leave for one reason or another. Therefore, there is a need to have 10% extra teaching staff instead of reducing it by 10% as contemplated in the RTE Bill, 2008. Section 31 talks of monitoring of child’s right to education by NCPCR. Experience with all the Commissions including NCPCR is that all these Commissions work like the department of the Government. Moreover, the Government has not so far appointed full strength members in the NCPCR. It is submitted that the District Judge of every District in the country, should be entrusted with the work of monitoring of child’s right to education. I am conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Judges are already burdened with deciding so many pending cases but one can not lose sight of the fact that the right to education is a most precious human and fundamental right and any further delay in implementation of the same would be a great peril to the nation. The Bill does not at all talk of accountability of the authorities. Unless there are provisions for the penalties against the erring authorities similar to those available in the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is really doubtful if the authorities would honestly perform their tasks.
Our constitutional goal is to achieve casteless and classless society as has been highlighted by a seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in OBC reservation in educational institutions case. The Government should have brought a Bill which would have directions towards casteless and classless society. However, the Bill in the present form, on the other hand, perpetuates the inequality and unjust discrimination amongst the children in the matter of right to education. That while expressing the above concerns regarding the serious drawbacks of the RTE Bill, 2008 particularly when it fails the test of Constitutional mandate, it cannot be over emphasised that the Bill should not be delayed any further on account of need to have a more comprehensive national debate on the same in the interest of the future of the children.
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
-by Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Sunday, February 22, 2009
INDIAN RULERS WROST THAN BRITISH RULERS
Indian rulers are even worst than the British rulers. They have eaten away the entire wealth of the common people. Only common people will teach them.
ashok agarwal, advocate
ashok agarwal, advocate
Saturday, February 21, 2009
INDIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AVERSE TO WORKERS' RIGHT
AFTER LEGAL BATTEL FOR MORE THAN 34 YEARS, WORKERS ARE STILL BACK TO SQUARE ONE-LABOUR COURT TOOK 20 YEARS & HIGH COURT TOOK 14 YEARS TO DECIDE THE CASE
The management of M/s Parrys Confectionery Limited terminated services of its four workers namely; S.P.Kapoor, N.N.Nayar, J.C.Bhatia and O.P.Dhingra on 26.09.1975. These workers raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the validity of their termination of services claiming reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services. During the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court, two of the workers namely S.P.Kapoor and O.P.Dhingra died. The Labour Court passed Award dated 05.08.1995 dismissing the claim of the workers holding that they were not ‘workman’ within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, not entitled to any relief.
The workers challenged the Labour Court Award in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in March, 1996. The writ petition remained pending disposal till 20.02.2009 when the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambir of Hon’ble High Court finally heard and decided the case. The Hon’ble Judge remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for reconsideration after taking into account the documentary evidence having been produced by the workers in support of their case. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate who appeared for the workers before the Hon’ble High Court argued that the Labour Court erred in law as it had failed to appreciate the documentary evidence having been produced by the workers in support of their case.
Though the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court has come in the favour of the workers but there is nothing to celebrate the same as the workers after fighting the legal battle for more than 34 years for justice are still back to square one. Though the Hon’ble High Court has expressed hope that the Labour Court would decide the case as expeditiously as possible, no body knows when the Labour Court would hear and decide the case once again. Two of the workers are not alive and the other two, though have not yet lost the hope, but have a grudge against the present justice delivery system.
By Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
21.09.2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Legal intervention to avail right to education and right to health - A report on Mr.Ashok Aggarwal's lecture
By Guest Blogger: Sandeep Vishnu
[Student, III Year, Campus Law Centre, Delhi University]
As part of its ongoing series of guest lectures, the Seminar and Discussion Committee of Campus Law Centre, Delhi University invited advocate Mr. Ashok Aggarwal from Social Jurist on February 5. The subject of his talk was “Legal intervention to avail right to health and right to education.”
Mr. Aggarwal has been practising at the bar since 1982 and has been instrumental in filing numerous PILs on rights of citizens against hospitals and schools, both government and private-run.
The first part of the talk was devoted to the present status of the right to health available to the poor in India. Mr. Aggarwal talked of the effort it takes to make your voice heard when it comes to assertion of your basic rights. Giving examples of actual situations faced by poor patients who could not afford to spend any money on their medical treatment, he expressed dissatisfaction at the state of affairs in government hospitals. He stated that nothing is mandated by our law as such when it comes to free treatment of the poor and needy in government and private hospitals. He had filed a writ petition in 2002 in the Delhi High Court in this regard.
Mr. Aggarwal pointed out that the law in India does not mandate anything like basic health care to every citizen, but was of the opinion that health and education must be made free at all levels as is the case in some countries such as Cuba. It would be a good futuristic investment to do that, especially when the current situation reeks of arbitrariness in policy making and failure in deliverance of promised constitutional goal of social justice.
When the writ petition was filed in 2002, the data depicted a large number of hospitals run by numerous societies which were operating on subsidized government allotted land. But as a matter of social responsibility towards the poor, neither the hospital authorities nor those in the health department of the government were contributing anything. The writ petition started to yield some positive results when the Court ordered private hospitals, built on land allotted by government authorities at subsidized rates, to provide free beds and free OPD treatment for a fixed percentage of patients.
Now it is possible to see the effect in private hospitals, some of whom have already fixed the number of free beds for economically weaker sections (EWS) and also give free OPD treatment as per guidelines, while more are following suit. He stated that some prominent hospitals like Gangaram, Fortis etc. have contributed a lot of money towards treating the needy. Word of mouth has been the best possible propaganda here. But the condition of government hospitals still leaves a lot to be desired.
Mr. Aggarwal also briefed the audience regarding the sorry state of affairs in some of these hospitals where stray animals breed on beds or medicines are rarely available and stated that to overcome such situations, judicial orders and the media have sometimes temporarily buzzed the sleeping government machinery. Overall picture seems to show that while private health care players have realized that it is necessary to take care of the poor and the needy as a social goal, the government is yet to come to terms with the idea of being the policy maker in this regard and taking a big leap by legislating in this direction so as to motivate more private investment and more contribution in the vindication of this primary social goal.
The second issue regarding the Right to education was essentially taken up on constitutional grounds of directive principles of state policy like Articles 38 , 39 & 45 which aspire for a welfare state and have been given the same weightage as fundamental rights , although the former remain non justiciable. Fundamental Rights in Article 14, 21 & Article 21-A were highlighted in due course along with Fundamental duties in Article 51-A.
Mr. Aggarwal pointed out that in 1993 when the Unnikrishnan judgement was delivered by the Apex Court, it was clear that Article 45 mandates early childhood care and education for all children below 6 years of age. By 86th Amendment in 2002, Article 21-A was inserted into the Constitution mandating the state to provide free & compulsory education to all children between 6 to 14 years of age. But none of the above articles have seen the light of enforcement yet. In such a grim situation Mr. Aggarwal has himself filed over 125 cases including PILs and writs in the High Court as well as Supreme Court in this regard.
According to Mr. Aggarwal, the insertion of article 21-A requires that no child should be out of school and that there is also a ban on all forms of child labour in the age group 6-14 years. He was of the view that our central legislations in this regard are not yet in tandem with the constitutional right to education. In this regard in one of the cases filed in the Supreme Court has been to declare child labour as unconstitutional and to ensure that all future legislations are in tune with our social welfare goals and aspirations.
Another highlight of the talk was the prevalent discrimination in allotment of funds by the government to Kendriya Vidyalayas and other government or Municipal schools. Mr.Aggarwal was of the opinion that all government schools should be treated at par with each other, parallel schooling systems should be done away with and the current pending draft of Right to education Bill should be fast tracked to regulate schooling in the country. The Apex Court has been requested that pending the legislation, guidelines in relation to minimum and basic facilities be framed.
In 1997, when the 5th Pay Commission recommendations were introduced, almost all private schools hiked their fees manifold. When a PIL was filed in the High Court of Delhi, it was felt by the Court that although free education mandate cannot strictly apply to the private schools they must not be allowed to commercialize on such a big scale and must be held accountable by charging just and reasonable fees from children. While the High Court ordered a set of guidelines to the private schools, the appeal of the latter was dismissed by Supreme Court.
Another PIL discussed by him was with regard to lack of proper buildings and other basic facilities in government and MCD schools, which as a campaign, was also supported by the print media. As per the directions issued on the basis of evidence produced in the court, every school is now required to have fixed boundary walls, toilet and drinking water facilities in working condition. Mr. Aggarwal remarked that today we have come a long way, yet the only thing that is lacking in such schools is quality education.
Mr. Aggarwal also highlighted the plight of the children of the jhuggiwalas, the ragpickers etc. in Delhi who want to have basic education but are denied this right and are most often discriminated against for no fault or reason. He has taken up various such matters in the High Court and it has been seen that after initial troubles, justice certainly triumphs. As was the case in health care, the government allots land at subsidised rates to various societies for setting up schools and approximately 265 such schools were listed before the High Court who were doing nothing for the sake of imparting education to the EWS, in spite of the Court's directions in this regard in 2004.
Another issue was the interviewing process of the 3-year olds by the schools in the name of assessing their values and talent as per the school's reputation. The High Court has dealt sternly with the situation and ordered that no such school on government allotted land shall deny admission to the EWS children and that no such interviews shall be permitted any more. Even the Government schools found violating such admission orders have been warned against this practice.
The message conveyed to the audience was that it is not personal grudge but honesty of purpose that is required for a sincere effort towards making of a better society where every person is healthy and educated. It is advisable to form social pressure groups for such purposes and keep litigation as the last alternative. Mr. Aggarwal felt that his efforts showed visible impact, as is evident by the 25 per cent quota for EWS in Delhi private schools or as is visible in the list of over 35 private hospitals with free beds and free OPD facilities.
Friday, January 23, 2009
CAN'T PAY SCHOOL FEE - CAN'T TAKE UNIT TEST
Kirtika class IX-A student of Happy Senior School, C-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (Phone 41424681) was not allowed to take unit test of Hindi subject on 12.01.2009 because her parents could not pay full school fees of Kirtika. Apprehending that when she will go to school on Monday, 19.01.2009, the school will again not allow her to take unit test, she has sent written request to Shri Ashok Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court to intervene into the matter.
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)