Dear Friends,
We are all silent witness to the arbitrary and exorbitant fee hike every year in all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi. The schools as usual have hiked fee at the rate of more than 10% in the beginning of the current academic year of 2008-2009. Now, in the mid-year of this academic year, the schools are proposing to further hike the fee at the rate of 70% to 100% with effect from 01.04.2008 plus arrears for nearly 32 months ranging between Rs. 10, 000/- to Rs. 30, 000/- per student on the pretext of sixth pay commission recommendations. Some of the schools have already enforced the proposed fee hike in violation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh (AIR 1999 Delhi 124 DB).
It is unfortunate that the Government of Delhi which is not only empowered by law but has also a constitutional and a statutory duty to check the menace of commercialization of education by the unaided recognized private schools has always remained a passive spectator. We all know that commercialization of education is legally prohibited and a school charging arbitrary and exorbitant fee is guilty of indulging in commercialization of education.
It is submitted that both the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have well settled the principles for determination of fee and other charges by unaided recognized private schools. However, both the Government of Delhi and the Schools are issuing misleading public statements resulting in utter confusion amongst the parents/students.
The lawyers as a class is not only affected by such arbitrary and unjustified fee hike but has also a crucial role to fight for the protection of the rights of the parents/students. It is, therefore, decided to hold an informal interactive session of lawyers to discuss the current issue of fee hike in unaided recognized private schools. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate (M-09811101923) who has been consistently advocating the cause of the parents/students since 1997 has agreed to brief the lawyer friends on this hot issue.
It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly participate in this informal interactive session of lawyers to be held on Tuesday, 27.01.2009 from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm at Parking Lot, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, opposite State Bank of India, Delhi-110054.
With regards,
Kusum Sharma, Advocate, President, Social Jurist
Mob- 9818026552
Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate, General Secretary,
Faith Academy Parents’ Association
Mob- 9268130817
25.01.2009
LAWYERS FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
FEE HIKE - GOVT MUST IMPLEMENT HIGH COURT RULING
How any public school in Delhi can seek fee hike without first getting their financial records from 1996-97 and onwards examined by a statutory committee as per the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 30.10.1998 in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh case? Though the Bansal Committee report is yet not available for comments, but what is gathered from the news reports is that the Bansal Committee has recommended that tuition fee of not more than Rs. 500/- and arrears to be collected from students should not exceed Rs. 4500/- per head. Of course, the Committee has suggested that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of private schools in the city and their financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike.
It may be noted that what ever tuition fee is increased, it will automatically increase development fee at the rate of 10 percent of the increased tuition fee. If Re. 500/- is increased in the tuition fee, Re. 50/- would be automatically increased in the Development fee, meaning thereby that the actual fee increased is not Re. 500/- but Rs.550/-. The Bansal Committee’s suggestion that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of the private schools in the city and financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike is in the line of 1998 directives given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the recommendation for increase of any fee without examination of accounts by the statutory committee appears to be self contradictory.
No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.
67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”
That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.
It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.
It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
I appeared before the Bansal Committee on behalf of the Social Jurist and the Delhi Abhbhavak Mahasangh to place the parents’ view point. It was submitted that the Committee has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It was also submitted that if the Committee did not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.
After the Bansal Committee has submitted its report to the Government, the ball is now in the court of the Government. The Government has so far failed to implement the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also to protect the hapless parents/students. It is time to wait and watch.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
(15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com )
It may be noted that what ever tuition fee is increased, it will automatically increase development fee at the rate of 10 percent of the increased tuition fee. If Re. 500/- is increased in the tuition fee, Re. 50/- would be automatically increased in the Development fee, meaning thereby that the actual fee increased is not Re. 500/- but Rs.550/-. The Bansal Committee’s suggestion that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of the private schools in the city and financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike is in the line of 1998 directives given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the recommendation for increase of any fee without examination of accounts by the statutory committee appears to be self contradictory.
No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.
67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”
That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.
It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.
It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
I appeared before the Bansal Committee on behalf of the Social Jurist and the Delhi Abhbhavak Mahasangh to place the parents’ view point. It was submitted that the Committee has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It was also submitted that if the Committee did not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.
After the Bansal Committee has submitted its report to the Government, the ball is now in the court of the Government. The Government has so far failed to implement the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also to protect the hapless parents/students. It is time to wait and watch.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
(15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com )
MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL ILLEGALLY HIKES FEE
To
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that the hapless parents of the students studying in Mount Carmel School, Anand Niketan A-21, New Delhi- 110021 have complained to me in writing that the management of the said school has issued a demand notice dated 15.12.2008 to all the parents of the students of the school whereby they have been directed to shell out thousands of rupees towards arrears of enhanced fees i.e. Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1.4.2008 on account of increase in salary bill of the teachers due to implementation of sixth pay commission. Copies of the parents’ complaint dated 19.1.2009 and school’s demand notice dated 15.12.2008 are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
We have worked out the increase in the salary bill which comes to approx. 12 lakhs p.m. But dividing this by the full fee paying students i.e. 1944 we find a need for an increase of approx. Rs. 620/- p.m. to meet the current requirements. However, it has been decided to increase the tuition fees currently by 30% only i.e. Rs. 550/- only for the financial year 2008-2009.
Enclosed please find bill for 4th quarter at the new rate plus arrears of quarter 1,2 & 3. Fee for 4th quarter may be paid by 23rd January 2009 and the arrears be cleared latest be 28th February 2009 before the start of 2nd term examination. For class X and XII kindly clear dues by February 20th, 2009 before collection of Admit Card.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
It is further brought to your notice that the school had earlier hiked the tuition fee on 1.4.2008 from Rs. 1650/- to Rs. 1800/- per month plus development fund from Rs. 165/- to Rs. 180/- per month (more than 10%). In terms of the aforesaid school notice dated 15.12.2008, the school has further hiked the tuition fee from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2350/- per month plus development fee from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 235/- per month (30%) with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the total fee hiked is more than 40% in the current academic year of 2008-2009.
It is submitted that the school has hiked the fee without following the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the directions having been given by the honourable Delhi High Court on 30.10.1998 in case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. The parents are being forced by the school to deposit the fee at the increased rates as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
That the aforesaid action and conduct of the school is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to commercialisation of education and warrants serious action. The fee hiked by the school is otherwise also unjust and unreasonable.
It is, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action on urgent basis may be taken against the school thereby preventing the school to charge fees and other charges from the parents at the increased rates in terms of the school notice dated 15.12.2008. It is also requested that the school may be directed to refund the access amounts to the parents who have already deposited with school the fee and other charges as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that the hapless parents of the students studying in Mount Carmel School, Anand Niketan A-21, New Delhi- 110021 have complained to me in writing that the management of the said school has issued a demand notice dated 15.12.2008 to all the parents of the students of the school whereby they have been directed to shell out thousands of rupees towards arrears of enhanced fees i.e. Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1.4.2008 on account of increase in salary bill of the teachers due to implementation of sixth pay commission. Copies of the parents’ complaint dated 19.1.2009 and school’s demand notice dated 15.12.2008 are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
We have worked out the increase in the salary bill which comes to approx. 12 lakhs p.m. But dividing this by the full fee paying students i.e. 1944 we find a need for an increase of approx. Rs. 620/- p.m. to meet the current requirements. However, it has been decided to increase the tuition fees currently by 30% only i.e. Rs. 550/- only for the financial year 2008-2009.
Enclosed please find bill for 4th quarter at the new rate plus arrears of quarter 1,2 & 3. Fee for 4th quarter may be paid by 23rd January 2009 and the arrears be cleared latest be 28th February 2009 before the start of 2nd term examination. For class X and XII kindly clear dues by February 20th, 2009 before collection of Admit Card.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
It is further brought to your notice that the school had earlier hiked the tuition fee on 1.4.2008 from Rs. 1650/- to Rs. 1800/- per month plus development fund from Rs. 165/- to Rs. 180/- per month (more than 10%). In terms of the aforesaid school notice dated 15.12.2008, the school has further hiked the tuition fee from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2350/- per month plus development fee from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 235/- per month (30%) with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the total fee hiked is more than 40% in the current academic year of 2008-2009.
It is submitted that the school has hiked the fee without following the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the directions having been given by the honourable Delhi High Court on 30.10.1998 in case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. The parents are being forced by the school to deposit the fee at the increased rates as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
That the aforesaid action and conduct of the school is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to commercialisation of education and warrants serious action. The fee hiked by the school is otherwise also unjust and unreasonable.
It is, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action on urgent basis may be taken against the school thereby preventing the school to charge fees and other charges from the parents at the increased rates in terms of the school notice dated 15.12.2008. It is also requested that the school may be directed to refund the access amounts to the parents who have already deposited with school the fee and other charges as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
Friday, January 23, 2009
CAN'T PAY FEE - CAN'T TAKE UNIT TEST
Kirtika class IX-A student of Happy Senior School, C-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (Phone 41424681) was not allowed to take unit test of Hindi subject on 12.01.2009 because her parents could not pay full school fees of Kirtika. Apprehending that when she will go to school on Monday, 19.01.2009, the school will again not allow her to take unit test, she has sent written request to Shri Ashok Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court to intervene into the matter.
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
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
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
Thursday, November 20, 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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
