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
Sunday, March 22, 2009
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
Saturday, March 7, 2009
EWS STUDENTS ADMISSION IN UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS - HIGH COURT ORDER OF 18.02.2009
DELHI HIGH COURT, AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No. 3156 OF 2002
Social Jurist vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others
Order dated 18.02.2009 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench in the PIL relating to the free seats to the students belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 384 unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom public land was allotted on concessional rates
“We are informed that the admission process for the academic session 2009-2010 is in process and is likely to be completed by April and an assurance has been given on behalf of the respective schools that the interim order of this court for reservation admitting to 15% of EWS students could be maintained and complied with in letter and spirit.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that there are complaints that some of the schools are not issuing forms to the parents of the eligible EWS students. It will be open for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal to approach the Director of Education with regard to such cases and in the case such representation is received, the department will take appropriate action in accordance with the Law.
All the concerned schools are directed to submit their statement to the Director of Education by the first week of May, 2009 indicating the number of students admitted under the EWS category. The Director of Education shall ascertain the veracity of this report and file a status report in this court by the end of May, 2009.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat also informs us that fee have been refunded to students in terms of the order dated 30th May, 2007. Let the matter stand over till 8th July, 2009.
The State Government is directed to give adequate publicity to the reservation for EWS category on its Website, Newspapers, Doordarshan and other channels as well as in Cinema halls by way of slides.”
W.P. (C) No. 3156 OF 2002
Social Jurist vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others
Order dated 18.02.2009 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench in the PIL relating to the free seats to the students belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 384 unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom public land was allotted on concessional rates
“We are informed that the admission process for the academic session 2009-2010 is in process and is likely to be completed by April and an assurance has been given on behalf of the respective schools that the interim order of this court for reservation admitting to 15% of EWS students could be maintained and complied with in letter and spirit.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that there are complaints that some of the schools are not issuing forms to the parents of the eligible EWS students. It will be open for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal to approach the Director of Education with regard to such cases and in the case such representation is received, the department will take appropriate action in accordance with the Law.
All the concerned schools are directed to submit their statement to the Director of Education by the first week of May, 2009 indicating the number of students admitted under the EWS category. The Director of Education shall ascertain the veracity of this report and file a status report in this court by the end of May, 2009.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat also informs us that fee have been refunded to students in terms of the order dated 30th May, 2007. Let the matter stand over till 8th July, 2009.
The State Government is directed to give adequate publicity to the reservation for EWS category on its Website, Newspapers, Doordarshan and other channels as well as in Cinema halls by way of slides.”
PARENTS UNABLE TO PAY FEE OF RS. 6500 - GREEDY SCHOOL DECLINES BROTHER-SISTER TO TAKE ANNUAL EXAMINATION
07.03.2009
To,
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Sub: Parents unable to pay RS. 6500 – Greedy school declines brother-sister to take annual examination
Dear Sir,
That Mr. B.S Kapoor and Mrs. Meenu Kapoor (M: 9313506686) r/o C-32, Hardev Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 84, parents of master Abhishek Kapoor and Kumari Heena Kapoor, students of classes VI & IV of Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 (M : 9212205870), have personally complained to me that since they were unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6500 ( arrears on account of fee hike + books charges) to the school, the schools’ Principal kept both of their wards out from taking annual examinations which started on the 5th of March 2009. Inspite of the fact that the parents promised to pay the said sum of Rs. 6500 to the school, before they were provided with annual report cards, the greedy school Principal did not listen to them at all. These students have already missed three exams and if this state of affairs continues anymore, they would also miss the remaining exams which would end on 17.03.2009.
The parents’ economic condition is very bad and the total family monthly income is not more than Rs. 5000. The said conduct of the school leaves no doubt that the said school has been indulging in commercialization of education. The basic legal philosophy of philanthropy and community service behind running the school has been completely violated. Unfortunately, the Government of Delhi is a silent spectator and has miserably failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of free and good quality education in the schools. In the absence of good quality Government schools, the hapless parents are forced to send their wards to fee charging private schools and to part with a substantial portion of their income.
It is the pious duty of the Government to ensure that no child is victimized, harassed, tortured and deprived of its Right to Education.
It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may be taken in this matter with an intimation to the undersigned.
With regards
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile - 9811101923
Copy to: Principal, Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084, for information and necessary action please.
To,
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Sub: Parents unable to pay RS. 6500 – Greedy school declines brother-sister to take annual examination
Dear Sir,
That Mr. B.S Kapoor and Mrs. Meenu Kapoor (M: 9313506686) r/o C-32, Hardev Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 84, parents of master Abhishek Kapoor and Kumari Heena Kapoor, students of classes VI & IV of Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 (M : 9212205870), have personally complained to me that since they were unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6500 ( arrears on account of fee hike + books charges) to the school, the schools’ Principal kept both of their wards out from taking annual examinations which started on the 5th of March 2009. Inspite of the fact that the parents promised to pay the said sum of Rs. 6500 to the school, before they were provided with annual report cards, the greedy school Principal did not listen to them at all. These students have already missed three exams and if this state of affairs continues anymore, they would also miss the remaining exams which would end on 17.03.2009.
The parents’ economic condition is very bad and the total family monthly income is not more than Rs. 5000. The said conduct of the school leaves no doubt that the said school has been indulging in commercialization of education. The basic legal philosophy of philanthropy and community service behind running the school has been completely violated. Unfortunately, the Government of Delhi is a silent spectator and has miserably failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of free and good quality education in the schools. In the absence of good quality Government schools, the hapless parents are forced to send their wards to fee charging private schools and to part with a substantial portion of their income.
It is the pious duty of the Government to ensure that no child is victimized, harassed, tortured and deprived of its Right to Education.
It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may be taken in this matter with an intimation to the undersigned.
With regards
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile - 9811101923
Copy to: Principal, Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084, for information and necessary action please.
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
Monday, February 16, 2009
Doon School, Dehradun commercializes Education
16th February 2009
To
Hon’ble Shri Arjun Singh
Union Education Minister
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi – 110001
Hon’ble Shri B.C Khanduri
Chief Minister
State of Uttrakhand
Secretariat
Dehradun, Uttrakhand
Subject: Registration Fee of Rs.36, 000/- for entrance test alone for admission in classes VII and VIII in The Doon School, Dehradun
Respected Sir,
I am constrained to encroach upon your valuable time to highlight the unconstitutional practices of the Doon School, The Mall, Dehradun for indulging into an extortionist act of extracting a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the name of Registration fee for Admission to classes VII & VIII from desirous students and thereby indulging in an act which can be without any double thought be termed as “Commercialization of Education”. It is submitted that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of entrance test, every applicant/student has to part with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- against the cost of the prospectus.
Hon’ble Shri Arjun Singh
Union Education Minister
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi – 110001
Hon’ble Shri B.C Khanduri
Chief Minister
State of Uttrakhand
Secretariat
Dehradun, Uttrakhand
Subject: Registration Fee of Rs.36, 000/- for entrance test alone for admission in classes VII and VIII in The Doon School, Dehradun
Respected Sir,
I am constrained to encroach upon your valuable time to highlight the unconstitutional practices of the Doon School, The Mall, Dehradun for indulging into an extortionist act of extracting a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the name of Registration fee for Admission to classes VII & VIII from desirous students and thereby indulging in an act which can be without any double thought be termed as “Commercialization of Education”. It is submitted that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of entrance test, every applicant/student has to part with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- against the cost of the prospectus.
With the growing concern on the issue of education, it is needless to say that commercialization of education is illegal and the same shall neither be permissible nor it shall be allowed to perpetuate. It is unfortunate that any person who is desirous of educating his ward in the Doon School has to make a hefty payment of a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as registration / entrance test fee besides payment of Rs.1, 000/- on account of prospectus to appear for a written test. In the subsequent stage, the candidates who qualify the written test are further required to appear for a personal interview. Those students who are successful in passing the interview round are finally granted admission.
On the basis of a personal enquiry, it has been known that some 500 students registered themselves for registration/ entrance test in class VII and some 450 students for Class VIII for the Academic Session 2009-2010. Out of the above mentioned 450, only 32 students qualified the written test and 22 students were admitted to Class VIII. On the basis of the above, the school amassed a sum of Rs. 3, 42, 00, 000/- in the name of registration fee only. The income accrued by the sale of prospectus is however manifold but not known.
Further, the profit making process of the Commercial Education Shop doesn’t stop here and every admitted student is further charged a fee of Rs. 3.2 Lacs every year in form of School fee.
It is pertinent to mention that in our Country, where Education is a matter of a Right, the huge fee slabs and unjustified miscellaneous fees charged by the Doon School holds no justification and is in blatant disregard and violation of the well established notion of Right to Education guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Though the School was registered as a non profit making body, it appears on the face and in the light of the aforesaid facts that the School has a keen interest in acting as a private limited Company and deriving maximum profits.
It is unfortunate that such mal practices are prevalent and adopted by the education institutions. This matter, however calls for an urgent need, not only to prohibit the Doon School from committing such mal practices but also to consider the fact that not only the above cited School but various other Education Institutions are involved in such practices, A national level legal framework to regulate the functioning the Education Institutions in this regard is need of the hour, so as to ensure that education remains a right and not a commercial Shop, and every Indian enjoys the right without being discriminated on the basis of his/her economic or Social status.
We, therefore, most humbly request that the central government should forthwith bring legislation regulating unaided private schools so to ensure that they do not dare to indulge in commercializing the school education by exploiting the hapless parents/students of this country. We also request you to kindly direct the management of the Doon School to refund forthwith the registration fee of Rs. 36,000/- to all the students/parents.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09811101923
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09811101923
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Parents protest school fee hike
Sunit Dhawan
Tribune News Service
Gurgaon, February 15
Hundreds of parents of school-going children staged a protest demonstration here today against certain private schools’ move to hike the tuition fee of students. They marched in protest against from the local Ram Lila Ground to the deputy commissioner’s camp office, where they submitted a memorandum to be forwarded to the Haryana Governor, Chief Minister and Education Minister.
Ashok Agarwal, president, All-India Parents Association asserted that the apex court had clearly told the state governments to ensure the provision of education to children as it was their fundamental right.
“Still, there is no proper system in place to check or control the functioning of the privately managed schools and other educational institutions,” he said.
Vashisht Kumar Goyal, president, Millennium Parents Association, Gurgaon, maintained that the government should set up an education commission to regulate the functioning of the private schools once and for all.
“It is high time that the state authorities clarified and implemented a proper education policy which also covers the private schools,” he maintained.
Terming the move on fee hike by certain private schools “illegal and unconstitutional”, The protesting parents stressed that in the absence of a well-defined regulatory mechanism, the private school managements were free to take decisions on their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
