MCD PRIMARY SCHOOL NEGLECTS MUSLIM STUDENTS

Justice Rajender Sachar Committee Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India (November 2006) says that as many as 25 percent of Muslim children in the 6-14 year age group have either never attended school or have dropped out. Following the recommendations of this Committee, the Government of India came up with an ambitious plan of action to improve the lot of the Muslim community. However, such plan has remained elusive so far.

MCD Primary School, IInd Shift, Main Road, Zafrabad, Delhi-53 is an Urdu Medium School having an enrolment of around 800 underprivileged Muslim students in Classes I to V. There are eight regular primary teachers plus six contract primary teachers plus one Principal, namely Shri Sirajuddin (M-9211534490) in this school. The students from the beginning of the academic year i.e. April 2008 were totally deprived of the benefit of all these eight regular primary teachers since these teachers were deployed to other non teaching work by the Government. These teachers were exclusively deployed for child census work in the month of April. May-June was school holidays. From July to November, they were deployed for Delhi Election work and from 30.11.2008 they have been deployed on election duty in Jammu and Kashmir and nobody knows when these teachers would return to school to teach the students.

In such horrible conditions, how we can expect these students to receive good quality education so to compete with their counterparts studying in fee charging private schools. It is a hard reality that the system is so designed by the rulers that the students belonging to the underprivileged sections are bound to be arbitrarily and unjustly discriminated and deprived of their basic educational rights. The Social Justice philosophy of our Constitution has been breached as a rule and followed in practice in exception.

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-09811101923
19.12.2008

Schoolteacher commits atrocities on Class VI student

07.10.2008

To,

Shri Amod Kant,
Chairperson,
Delhi Commission for Protection of the Rights of Children (DCPRC),
“Nirmal Chhaya”,
Department of Women and Child,
Jail Road, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-64

Sub: Schoolteacher commits atrocities on Class VI student

Sir,

A glaring instance of the commission of continuous atrocities by Mrs. Gauri Elangovan, teacher of DTEA Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi against a class VI student namely, Master R. Rajshekhar has been brought to our notice in writing by Mrs. Sarawati Rajan, mother of Master R. Rajshekhar, r/o J-4/70, Khirki Extension, Malviyanagar, New Delhi-110017 (M-9891915885).

Mrs. Sarawati Rajan in her complaint dated 03.10.2008 (enclosed hereto) has stated that her son Master R. Rajshekhar is studying in DTEA Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi in class VI and Mrs. Gauri Elangovan has been harassing him for some time. The said teacher on 13.08.2008 used physical violence and corporal punishment against her son. This was brought to the notice of the school management and the principal by her husband vide letter-dated 18.08.2008. Thereafter, the parents made a complaint to the Education Department on 15.09.2008. Inspite of these complaints, the teacher continued to harass their child by abusing him and demeaning him before the other children in the class. On 17.10.2008 the said teacher referred to their son as ‘MAKKU’ which means ‘IDIOT’ and ‘MAKKUKU PORANTHA MAKKA THAN IRUPANGA’ which means ‘those born to IDIOTS will be IDIOTS’ in Tamil. On 18.10.2008 she advised the other children not to become like their son by saying, ‘IVANI MADIRI AGIVIDATHIGNGA’ which means ‘don’t become like him’. On 22.09.2008, she called their child ‘KANDA NAI’ which means ‘street dog’. The teacher also told the other children to keep away from him and not to mingle with him, as a result of which no other child dared to come near him or have lunch with him. The same abuse continued when the schools reopened after the exams and the said teacher kept calling their son names like ‘KANDA NAI PANNI’, which means ‘street dog and pig’. She humiliated him during the SST period.

The aforementioned acts on the part of the erring teacher are in violation of articles 21(right to life with dignity), 21-A (right to education in a conducive environment) of the Constitution of India, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, opposed to the letters and spirit of the National Policy on Education (1986), the National Charter for Children (2003) and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Not only this, the same has also violated the Guidelines issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in September 2007 on banning corporal punishment in Schools. These guidelines expanded the definition of corporal punishment to include “insult, humiliation, physical and mental injury”. Further, the same tantamounts to contempt of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which way back in 2001 in the celebrated case of Parents for Meaningful Education directed complete ban on corporal punishment in Schools. Further more, the same amounts to unbecoming of a teacher, which attracts serious disciplinary action including dismissal from service.

It is submitted that the authorities have failed to provide protection to the student inspite of the fact that Mrs. Saraswati Rajan and her husband have repeatedly brought to their notice the instances of the atrocities committed by the erring teacher against their son. It is a various serious matter, which needs immediate intervention on your part to ensure protection of the rights of Master R. Rajshekhar.

Kindly take immediate and urgent action in this matter with intimation to the undersigned.


With regards,
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile - 9811101923

If you don’t want fee hike in schools, please visit www.socialjurist.com and write your complaint.

Parents Killed Third Female Child The Day She Was Born

A child, being supremely important national asset, should be nurtured. This is more so in case of female child. The commission of offence on a female child, that too, on an infant of not even one day old, is a serious offence, requiring no lesser punishment than the life imprisonment. It is unfortunate that for one reason or other, the practice of female infanticide still prevails despite the fact that gentle touch of a daughter and her voice has soothing effect on the parents. The traditional practice of female infanticide by poisoning continues despite several legislations to prevent crime. These observations have been made by a Division Bench of Madras High Court while upholding conviction and sentence against the accused parents who after given birth to a third female child killed her by administering Madar Poison on the same day evening. [2008 Criminal Law Journal 1885]

Demeaning Childhood

Union women and child development minister Renuka Choudhury is justified in criticizing the U.P. police officials who sullied the image of Arushi Talwar while investigating her murder. The Constitution of India guarantees every child life with dignity (article 21).

In the instant case, the very fact that the food being served to the homeless street children in full public view and the publication of their pictures erodes the dignity and self esteem of the children. The given manner of the distribution of food is nothing but humiliation, degradation and insult to the children because they were not fortunate enough like other children of their age born in the privileged families.

We expect Mrs. Renuka Choudhury to take notice of this also and do her best to sensitize the politicians like, Madam Chief Minister of Delhi, who is supposed to guard the dignity of children.

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
(Mob-9811101923)
03.06.2008

RIGHT OF CHILD IN WOMB

A child in the womb is entitled to for a share in coparcenary property of an undivided Hindu joint family. The child is entitled for a share in the joint property when born and not otherwise. On behalf of the child in womb no partition suit is maintainable. In case of a partition of the joint family property by the father amongst his sons, even a son born after a partition arrangement can challenge the partition if the father has not retained separate share for himself exclusively. In a partition if a share is allotted to the father, a son begotten or born after the partition is not entitled to have the partition reopened and to claim redistribution of shares. But a child begotten after partition is entitled to succeed to the father’s share and to his separate or self-acquired property to the exclusion of divided sons. [M.S.Subbukrishna v. Smt. Parvathi 2008 AIHC 283 D.B. Karnataka H.C.]