Schools told to be disabled-friendly

Jul 27 2014 : Page-7, The Times of India (Delhi)

जिंदगी की आस लिए कर रहे संघर्ष

दैनिक जागरण , पेज-6, 27 जुलाई 2014

वकील अशोक अग्रवाल ने कहा कि कभी-कभार मिलने वाली आर्थिक मदद से समाधान नहीं निकलेगा। नांगलोई के रहने वाले सिराजुद्दीन के सात वर्षीय बेटे अहमद के इलाज के लिए दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार को फंड देने व मुफ्त इलाज कराने का आदेश दिया था। सहायता समूहों व दिल्ली सरकार से कुछ फंड जारी होने पर एम्स में बच्चे का इलाज शुरू हुआ। लेकिन बाद में फंड न मिलने से इलाज से मना कर दिया।

शरणार्थी बच्चे को डोनर की जानकारी दे एम्स

दैनिक जागरण , पेज-6, 27 जुलाई 2014

अधिवक्ता अशोक अग्रवाल के जरिए याचिका दायर कर मांग की है कि सरकार को निर्देश दिया जाए कि उसका निशुल्क इलाज किया जाए। बच्चे का अप्रैल, 2013 से इलाज चल रहा है। उसकी जान को खतरा है और उसे तुरंत बोन-मैरो ट्रासप्लांट की जरूरत है। परंतु दिल्ली सरकार ने उसका निशुल्क इलाज कराने से मना कर दिया है। उसके माता-पिता उसके इलाज का खर्च उठाने में नाकाम हैं। बच्चे के पिता अफगानिस्तान से आए सिख शरणार्थी हैं।

On Gaucher's Day, SOS to PM

Activist advocate Ashok Aggarwal, who is representing Ahmed in Delhi high court, said, “A one-time aid and occasional private funding is not the solution. The government has to take a stand and be accountable for the lives of these patients.“

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=On-Gauchers-Day-SOS-to-PM-27072014005024#

Jul 27 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)

Plea to save kid with tumour

Jul 27 2014 : Page-5, The Times of India (Delhi)

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Plea-to-save-kid-with-tumour-27072014005005#

ACTIVIST LAWYER WRITES TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SEEKING IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF 10 YEARS OLD CANCER PATIENT AADIL

To

Hon’ble the Chief Justice

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110201

25.07.2014

Subject: Deprivation of Fundamental and Human Right to Life of a 10-year old child

Respected Sir

We are hereby raising a fundamental question of law of general public importance for your kind consideration as to whether it is not the duty of the State to step in for the protection of human and Fundamental Right to Life of a child whose parents, for economic or other reasons, choose to withdraw the child from a life saving medical treatment.

Master Adil, aged 10 years, son of a Rikshaw-puller, Gauhar Ali, resident of 287, Dheemani Ashink, Dheemani, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh [Mob.- 09045173686] is suffering from Acute Myeloid Leukemia (blood cancer) and also a tumor in his left eye. The patient was first taken to JLN Medical College Hospital, A.M.U., Aligarh, U.P., where he remained admitted from 12.07.2014 to 15.07.2014, after which his parents brought him to Delhi to seek treatment, as was advised by the doctors. The father of the patient had approached me on 17.07.2014 for free treatment of his son under EWS category in a suitable identified private hospital. Being a member of the Delhi High Court-constituted EWS treatment Monitoring Committee, I referred him to Action Cancer Hospital, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. He was admitted to the said hospital on 17.07.2014 itself.

During the course of Adil’s treatment as an in-patient, Action Cancer Hospital referred the patient to AIIMS for the removal of his eye-tumor, in view of the degree of specialization involved. According to the doctor, the treatment for leukemia could only be started after the removal of eye-tumor. 

On 22.07.2014, at my instance, law students Siddharth Seem, Prabhat Kumar, Kanishk Arora and Rahul Pawar interning under me went to Action Cancer Hospital to facilitate the child’s transfer to AIIMS. Action Cancer Hospital had agreed to provide an ambulance and all related assistance for the transfer. However, the patient’s father, perhaps burdened by ancillary expenses, was insisting upon getting the patient discharged from the hospital so that he could take him back to their village in Uttar Pradesh. The doctors at the Action Cancer Hospital and my interns made persistent efforts to explain to the patient’s father that the patient’s survival would only be possible if he is taken to AIIMS immediately. But the patient’s father chose to get the patient discharged, against medical advice and we all were rendered helpless by the father’s decision. In view of my interaction with the treating doctor, I have a bona fide apprehension that the child would die soon if left untreated.

This incident raises serious questions on our country’s legal system relating to the children’s human and Fundamental Right to life, which directly includes healthcare at all levels, more so when it is essential for the child’s survival. I am of the firm view that this is not a solitary case but a mere illustration of the wider reality of children’s life and health being jeopardized due to the guardians’ ignorance.

It is submitted that in the present era of child rights, the State can no longer remain a mute spectator to such instances which involve critical decision-making for the life and health of a child, nor can the state leave it to the mercy of the parent or guardian of the child whether or not to save the life of a dying child.

Needless to say, Article 21 of our Constitution ensures Right to Life to every person. Further, the National Charter for Children, 2003 imposes a responsibility upon the State, parents, communities and on the society to protect the best interest of children in their obligations in fulfilling the basic needs of the children. Section 1(a) thereof states that the State and community shall undertake all possible measures to ensure and protect the survival, life and liberty of all children.

India has acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on 11.12.1992. Article 6 thereof gives recognition to the child’s inherent right to life and enjoins upon the State to ensure to the maximum possible extent possible the survival and development of the child. Article 18 Clause 2 casts a duty upon the State to render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children, for the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the Convention. Article 24 Clause 1 accords recognition to the child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. Further, it casts a duty upon the State to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. Clause 2 of the same Article enjoins upon the State to pursue full implementation of this right. Sub-clause (a) particularly casts a duty upon the Sate to take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality.

There have been instances all over the world where the State has stepped in to save the life of a child requiring medical treatment, even superseding the will of his or her parents. In one such instance in the US in May 2009, a Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant against a woman who was denying treatment to his 13 year old son named Daniel Hauser suffering from Cancer. The warrant was issued after neither she nor her son had showed up for a court appearance.

However, in India, despite Constitutional provisions, provisions under National Charter, 2003 and obligations under International Conventions, there is a complete absence of laws and policies to tackle the situation where a guardian fails to do the needful for a child requiring life-saving treatment.

Under parens patriae doctrine, the State ought to act as a guardian to the children, in order to protect at least the most essential and Fundamental rights to life and health. The State must take recourse to every appropriate measure in the direction of protection of these rights of its children.

You are requested to kindly treat this letter as a PIL and direct the State to immediately take over the responsibility of Master Adil’s treatment and do everything necessary for saving his life, at the earliest. Further, certain laws, policies and protocols need to be laid down in order to take care of such contingencies in future.

With regards

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate

M: 9811101923

DELHI GOVERNMENT SCHOOL DENIES ADMISSION TO MUSLIM GIRL STUDENTS IN CLASSES 9 & 11 - LAWYER SLAPS LEGAL NOTICE ON DOE

To,
The Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines,
New Delhi- 110054.

24th July 2014

Subject: Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin denied admission in Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 3, M Block, Raghubir Nagar for classes IX and XI respectively

Dear Madam,

I have been informed by Shri Irshad, resident of R-535, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi- 110027 [Mob.- 991826520], that his two daughters Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin have been denied admission into Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 3, M Block, Raghubir Nagar for classes IX and XI respectively .

Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin were residing in Delhi earlier but went to Uttar Pradesh as their father had to go there for work. After the completion of the work, Shri Irshad and his daughters returned to Delhi and Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin sought admission in Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 1, Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 2 as well as Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 3, Raghubir Nagar. Each of the three schools however denied admission to both the girls. Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin wrote letters to the Principal of Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 2 on 19.07.2014 regarding the matter, but did not receive any response. It is submitted that despite DDE repeatedly asking HOS to admit these girl students, the school did not grant them admission.

Both girls are possessing their respective Transfer Certificates, which have been counter-signed and are valid, as well as their marksheets. There are thus no grounds for denying the girls admission into the school and the school’s actions are arbitrary and unjust. This act of the school will most severely damage their career and lives.

I thus request you to look into the matter and direct Govt. Girls Secondary School No. 3, M Block, Raghubir Nagar or any other government school nearby their residence, to admit Ms. Kulsum and Ms. Yasmin in Classes IX and XI respectively.

Yours sincerely,


Ashok Agarwal, Advocate.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF 8TH CLASS STUDENT SANJAY KUMAR?

8th class student Sanjay Kumar of Govt. Co-ed Secondary school, Sec. 15 Rohini has died on way to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini after he was allegedly beaten up by the school teacher. It was informed to me by Shri Vinod Choudhry (M-9810775604) Mama of the deceased student Sanjay Kumar. School is coming up with the version that the student was suffering from some medical problem that led to his death. In case, the student was beaten up by the teacher, police must arrest the teacher concerned and book him for murder U/S 302 IPC. In case, the death was on account of medical problem, then question arises, what medical facilities were available with the school and what the school has done to save the life of the very young student of 14 years old. It appears that despite Delhi High Court directions to the government and Local Body schools, the medical facilities were not made available in the schools. No one in the government is bothered about the students studying in their schools as these students belong to poor strata of society. Let us see as to what actions the Government and the Police will take in this case. As the teacher's lobby is very infuencial and the victim belongs to very poor family living in slums, we demand that the criminal investigations should entrusted to the Police Officer of not less than that of the Deputy Commissoner of Police (DCP) rank.

Ashok Agarwal 

Advocate 

President All India Parents Association (AIPA) 

M-09811101923

24.07.2014

RELAX CTET CONDITION IF ENOUGH ELIGIBLE SPECIAL EDUCATORS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, CAT DIRECTS DELHI GOVERNMENT

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), in its Order dated 09.07.2014, has directed the Delhi Government to assess if more Special Educators are required to be employed as Resource Teachers under Sarva Shikha Abhiyaan (SSA) and in case sufficient number of eligible special educators are not found, to take steps for relaxing the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) condition under Section 23 (2) of the RTE Act, 2009, in order to fill in the vacancies.

The Order has come in an Application filed by as many as 82 Special Educators, through Advocate Ashok Agarwal, who had been working as resource teachers under SSA but were ousted by the introduction of CTET condition which rendered them ineligible. After the introduction of the CTET condition, only about 47 eligible special educators could be recruited while originally, 300 special educators were working as resource teachers under SSA in Delhi.

 Advocate Ashok Agarwal, appearing for the applicants argued before the Tribunal that the CTET condition was being pressed for by the Government despite the fact that sufficient number of CTET qualified candidates were not available, leading to enormous vacancies and massive shortage of special educators in the government schools, affecting the right to education of children with special needs in government schools.

Mr. Agarwal further argued that the Government is under an obligation under Sections 25 and 26 of the RTE Act, 2009 and Delhi High Court Orders to ensure adequate number of special educators in its schools. Further, the RTE Act, 2009 under Section 23 (2) also empowers the Government to relax the qualifications for appointment if sufficient numbers of qualified candidates are not available.

The Tribunal has further directed the Delhi Government to bear in mind its obligation of ensuring adequate teacher pupil-ratio under Sections 25 and 26 of the RTE Act, while deciding as to whether additional numbers of special educators are required to be appointed.

copy of CAT order attached.

ASHOK AGARWAL, ADVOCATE

18.07.2014

M: 9811101923