SC begins crucial hearing on Right to Education

SC begins crucial hearing on Right to Edu

The Supreme Court began a crucial hearing on the validity of some provisions of the Right to Free and Compulsory Edu Act with minority and private unaided institutions opposing the mandatory reservation of 25 pc seats for economically backward sections under legislation.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swantanter Kumar took up the matter on a priority basis keeping in mind that the admission process for the nursery has to be completed by April.

Opening the arguments for some Uttar Pradesh-based minority institutions and Association of Unaided Schools from Karnataka, former Additional Solicitor General Vikas Singh put up a 3-point opposition to the law contending that it violated the rights of private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g).

He said the Act was coming in the way of autonomy of private managements to run their institutions without government interference.

Singh said it was for the state to ensure the right to education to children between the age of 6 to 14 years but it has no right to impose any reservation on minority and unaided private schools.

Further, the Act, he said, violates the rights of private institutions guarated under Article 19(g) as "minority and private unaided institutions have a right to admit students of their choice".

"Any legislation cannot interfere with that right," the senior advocate submitted.

He said private and minority institutions cannot be forced to work under the Act as it would amount to interfering with their right to administration which is recognised by the CBSE, ICSE or the state board.

During the hearing on 21st January, the court had taken note of the government affidavit which said the issue did not involve Article 15(5) of the Constitution.

The court said a three-judge bench can hear the matter if the issue of of basic principle of the Constituion was not raised.

The main petitioner Society for Un-aided Private Schools, Rajasthan, and a host of associations representing various private schools have questioned the validity of the Act on the ground that it impinged on their rights to run the educational institutions.

The apex court had noted that since the amendment to the Constitution which led to the enactment of the Right to Education Act has been challenged, the matter would be placed before a larger bench to decide its legal validity.

The petitioners had contended that the issues involved in the Act relate to Article 15 (5) and to Article 21(A) of the Constitution.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions which claimed the Act violated the rights of private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) which provided maximum autonomy to private managements to run their institutions without governmental interference.

The Act, which made free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children between 6-14 years, also mandated that private educational institutions have to reserve 25 per cent of the seats for children from poor families.

Article 21(A) says the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such a manner as the state may, by law, determine.

Article 15 (5) of the Constitution enables the state to make provisions for advancement of education for weaker sections of society relating to admission in educational institutions.

The petitions contended that the RTE Act, 2009, is "unconstitutional" and "violative" of fundamental rights.

The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's 11-judge Constitution bench ruling in TMA Pai case wherein it was ruled that maximum autonomy should be provided to private educational institutions.

According to the petitioners, Section 3 of the Act imposed an absolute mandate on all schools, including private unaided and minority institutions, to admit without any choice each and every child whosoever comes to take admission in the schools in the neighbourhood.

The provision prohibits any type of screening which is necessary for the procedure of admission, the petitioners said.

The Act was silent on the fate of the children between the age of 3-6 years which was in fact a crucial period for a child's education to commence, they said.

Further, the law did not permit the educational institutions to verify the age of the children coming for admission, the petitioner said, adding the power to expel students from the institution for unruly behaviour has been taken away by the new law.

The petitioners have challenged the provision in the law which makes it mandatory to promote all students till Class 8