“My child will go to school but your child will go to work”. Who are the people who have this kind of approach? People who either do not understand the economics of the child labour or are the beneficiaries of the child labour system. Still, there are people who express sympathies for the child labour but argue poverty, the reason.
The National Advisory Council (NAC) has recommended a blanket ban on child labour. Mr. Rajinder Puri, a writer and a veteran journalist and cartoonist by his write-up in Sunday Statesman 23 October 2011 has requested the NAC to reappraise its decision to impose ban on child labour. He argued, “In the era of Charles Dickens, there was child labour in Britain. With prosperity and eradication of acute poverty it is now banned. How far has acute poverty been removed in India? Should we not seriously consider radical reform of child labour before announcing an outright ban that cannot be implemented?” With due respect to our veteran journalist, I totally differ with this approach.
Supreme Court in 1993 while interpreting Article 21 (right to life with dignity) of the Constitution of India has declared right to education a fundamental right and the State will have no defense at all against this right in relation to the children upto the age of 14 years. In December 2002, Article 21-A has been inserted in the Constitution which mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to all the children in the age group six to fourteen years in the manner as the State may by law determine.
In terms of this constitutional provision, all children have to be in school and not at work. We should appreciate that ‘compulsory education’ and ‘child labour’ cannot go together. After the insertion of Article 21-A in the Constitution, child labour upto the age of fourteen years in all its form has become unconstitutional. The Government is duty bound to amend Child Labour Act so to put blanket ban on child labour.
Parents have no moral or legal right to force children to work for the reason of poverty. On the other hand, Article 51-A (k) of the Constitution imposes a duty on the parents or guardians to provide opportunities to their wards in the age group six to fourteen year to attend school. Ordinarily, it would not be proper to blame the parents but if some parents are deliberately indulging in such illegal activity, that can not be appreciated or encouraged.
In the entire debate on the child labour, we normally overlook one thing i.e., the State’s obligation. It is the Constitutional obligation of the State to bring all the children upto the age of fourteen years in the full time mainstream school education system and provide them good quality education. If it happens, the entire child labour will disappear. Despite poverty, the State is capable enough to bring every child in school. However, the State is totally insensitive, corrupt and dishonest and has been deliberately abdicating its obligations.
Child labour is a National Shame and nobody can justify it. Need of the hour is to compel the State by all possible means to bring all the children in the mainstream school education system and to get rid of the child labour. The right place for every child is at school and not at work. Oppose child labour and Love India.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
JOIN RTE PIL POSTCARD CAMPAIGN
In this Campaign, the students/children will write at least three top right to education related problems through postcards to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective State High Court. Each High Court of India needs to be flooded every day with thousands of such postcards. Several High Courts, in the past, have been converting such postcards in PILs and seeking answers from the State Authorities. This Campaign is bound to go a long way in realization of right to education. For more details, please write to Adv Ashok Agarwal, National President, AIPA at Email:juristashok@gmail.com M-09811101923
Monday, October 24, 2011
We Love India
Opposing Child Labour in all forms would mean We Love India. Respecting child rights would mean We Love India.
EDUCATION RIGHTS OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN
Delhi Govt insensitive towards education of Mentally Retarded Children - Delhi Govt, Department of Social Welfare run Asha Kiran Home which shelter approximately 800 mentally retarded destitute persons. Nearly half of these are children below age of 18 years. A year's back, I had raised issue in a meeting chaired by Mr. Rakesh Mohan, Delhi Education Secretary in regard to providing education to the children of the Asha Kiran Home in mainstream school in terms of their right to education. It was agreed that a team from Edu Deptt would visit the Home and identify the children for the purpose of education in Govt School adjacent to the Home. About 7-8 months back, a team headed by Mr.R.P.Yadav, DDE visited the Home. I also accompanied them. After discussion with the Home's Incharge, it was estimated that nearly 200 children could be imparted education in the Govt School. Later on, the experts in the field from Edu Department interacted with the children to get the accurate picture.
Today I have come to know that though the Education Department has so far identified over 36 children who could be admitted immediately and taught in the school but the Department of Social Welfare has refused to send these children to the next door mainstream govt school on a totally rubbish ground that they cannot take risk. There are other 150 or so children who could also be prepared in due course to join mainstream school. However, the Social Welfare Deptt which has no education facilities with them have actually made the mockery of right to education of these lesser god children by refusing to send them to next door mainstream govt school.
In these circumstances, the Social Jurist would take up the matter very soon with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Today I have come to know that though the Education Department has so far identified over 36 children who could be admitted immediately and taught in the school but the Department of Social Welfare has refused to send these children to the next door mainstream govt school on a totally rubbish ground that they cannot take risk. There are other 150 or so children who could also be prepared in due course to join mainstream school. However, the Social Welfare Deptt which has no education facilities with them have actually made the mockery of right to education of these lesser god children by refusing to send them to next door mainstream govt school.
In these circumstances, the Social Jurist would take up the matter very soon with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
MISSION SCHOOL ADMISSION 2012
JOIN "MISSION SCHOOL ADMISSION 2012" GROUP ON FACEBOOK - People are welcome to lodge complaints, ask queries, give suggestions, make comments etc. in regard to the admission of child in government or private aided or unaided school (including EWS admissions in unaided recognized private schools) in nursery or any other class. The legal experts in the field of Education Law would give their reactions/guidance.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/missionadmission/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/missionadmission/
PARENTS PROTEST AGAINST FEE-HIKE IN THE GUISE OF SMART CLASS
A large number of students and parents of St Lowrence Convent School, Geeta Colony, as well as parents members of All India Parents Association today protested outside the office of the Director of Education, Govt of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat Building against serious psychological violence on hundreds of innocent children studying in St. Lowrence Convent School by the school authorities in the guise of ‘’Smart Class’’.
With placards in their hands, the protestors shouted slogans against the government and school authorities. The protestors led by social activist and national president of All India Parents Association, Mr Ashok Agarwal, thereafter met the Director of Education and apprised him of the blatant discrimination taking place in the school. Mr Agarwal also submitted a detailed memorandum in the matter and sought immediate action against the school in the matter.
According to Mr Agarwal, the school has increased the fees in the mid-session in the guise of Smart Class in clear violation of Section
17 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as the school has not obtained prior permission from DOE for increasing the fees. Moreover, when the parents objected to the illegal action of the school, the school resorted to discriminate their wards by separating their classes. Even 41 EWS students were not spared by the school as they were declined the facility of EDUCOMP as they were unable to meet the demand of the school. They were also unjustly separated by other students.
Narrating the humiliation, harassment and discrimination by the management and school authorities of St Lowrence Convent School, the children and their parents said they have been completely traumatized; and if no immediate action is taken to check it would leave a permanent scar on the innocent minds.
According to the memorandum submitted to the Director of Education, some glaring facts relating to the case are as follows:
(i) The school has implemented a new "Smart Class" program and is
charging Rs 400/- per month per student. And from 17.10.2011 onwards
school has divided (DISCRIMINATED) students as "EDUCOMP STUDENTS" and
"NON-EDUCOMP STUDENTS." Therefore, those students who have not paid
this "Smart Class" Charges are not allowed to sit with their
classmates for merely Rs. 400/. This is despite the fact that all
students have already paid their Quarterly Fee of approx. Rs. 8,500.
(ii) The school authorities have gone to the extent of dividing
(discriminating) non-educomp students’ classes in different rooms and
even teachers, sections and their classmates have been changed.
(iii) This sudden discriminatory change in the middle of the session
will not just make the children unable to concentrate in their studies
but will have a serious negative psychological impact on their
innocent minds.
(iv) As many as 500-odd students have not paid this Smart Class Charges.
(v) This Educomp charge itself is on the higher side. The school has
Educomp as their Official Partner in this project. On the website of
Educomp it is clearly mentioned that Smart Class Charges are between
Rs 100-150 per student per month.
The memorandum further stated that the aforesaid action on the part of the school
tantamount to commercialization of Education. It is all greed on the
part of the school which has resulted in exploitation of hapless
parents/students. Apart from that, the same is in clear violation of
Section 17 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 which prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment to
child. Moreover, the same amounts to cruelty to child and attracts
punishment under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000. U.S. Supreme Court in
case of Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 283 (1954) where it has
been held that “separate education facilities are inherently unequal”
and thus, violate the doctrine of equality
With placards in their hands, the protestors shouted slogans against the government and school authorities. The protestors led by social activist and national president of All India Parents Association, Mr Ashok Agarwal, thereafter met the Director of Education and apprised him of the blatant discrimination taking place in the school. Mr Agarwal also submitted a detailed memorandum in the matter and sought immediate action against the school in the matter.
According to Mr Agarwal, the school has increased the fees in the mid-session in the guise of Smart Class in clear violation of Section
17 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as the school has not obtained prior permission from DOE for increasing the fees. Moreover, when the parents objected to the illegal action of the school, the school resorted to discriminate their wards by separating their classes. Even 41 EWS students were not spared by the school as they were declined the facility of EDUCOMP as they were unable to meet the demand of the school. They were also unjustly separated by other students.
Narrating the humiliation, harassment and discrimination by the management and school authorities of St Lowrence Convent School, the children and their parents said they have been completely traumatized; and if no immediate action is taken to check it would leave a permanent scar on the innocent minds.
According to the memorandum submitted to the Director of Education, some glaring facts relating to the case are as follows:
(i) The school has implemented a new "Smart Class" program and is
charging Rs 400/- per month per student. And from 17.10.2011 onwards
school has divided (DISCRIMINATED) students as "EDUCOMP STUDENTS" and
"NON-EDUCOMP STUDENTS." Therefore, those students who have not paid
this "Smart Class" Charges are not allowed to sit with their
classmates for merely Rs. 400/. This is despite the fact that all
students have already paid their Quarterly Fee of approx. Rs. 8,500.
(ii) The school authorities have gone to the extent of dividing
(discriminating) non-educomp students’ classes in different rooms and
even teachers, sections and their classmates have been changed.
(iii) This sudden discriminatory change in the middle of the session
will not just make the children unable to concentrate in their studies
but will have a serious negative psychological impact on their
innocent minds.
(iv) As many as 500-odd students have not paid this Smart Class Charges.
(v) This Educomp charge itself is on the higher side. The school has
Educomp as their Official Partner in this project. On the website of
Educomp it is clearly mentioned that Smart Class Charges are between
Rs 100-150 per student per month.
The memorandum further stated that the aforesaid action on the part of the school
tantamount to commercialization of Education. It is all greed on the
part of the school which has resulted in exploitation of hapless
parents/students. Apart from that, the same is in clear violation of
Section 17 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 which prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment to
child. Moreover, the same amounts to cruelty to child and attracts
punishment under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000. U.S. Supreme Court in
case of Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 283 (1954) where it has
been held that “separate education facilities are inherently unequal”
and thus, violate the doctrine of equality
Thursday, October 20, 2011
TRAVELLING CLAIM - MRS.KIRAN BEDI CANNOT JUSTIFY HER ACTION
Indian Courts have held in several cases that claiming reimbursement of money on a/c of travelling expenses more than what is actually spent is a very serious misconduct in service law attracting major penalty of dismissal or removal from service. What Ms. Kiran Bedi has done involves an element of moral turpitude which can not be justified by any stretch of imagination. It is totally immaterial whether the money has gone in NGO or personal account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)