Nasrin Modak Siddiqi (Mumbai) A top priority of left — communist, socialist — governments worldwide, is compulsory, free-of-charge early years and primary education for children. Yet despite newly-independent India’s Congress party passing a resolution in 1956 to establish a “socialist pattern of society”, compulsory primary education wasn’t decreed until 2009 when another Congress government at the Centre enacted the landmark Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The RTE Act makes it mandatory for the State (Central and state governments) to provide free and compulsory elementary (class I-VIII) education to all children in the 6-14 age group. Moreover, under s.12 (1) (c) of the Act, all private aided and independent schools are obliged to reserve 25 percent of capacity in class I for poor children in their neighbourhoods, and retain them free-of-charge until completion of class VIII. The expense of educating poor neighbourhood children thus admitted into private schools is mandated to be paid by state governments on the basis of average per child cost incurred by government for educating children in public schools, or actual fee charged by private neighbourhood schools, whichever is less. Inevitably this “backdoor nationalisation” of 25 percent capacity of private elementary schools was challenged in the Supreme Court. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India & Anr (Writ Petition (C) No. 95 of 2010), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court by a 2-1 majority upheld the constitutional validity of the RTE Act, 2009, and particularly s.12 (1) (c). However, the apex court exempted private boarding and minority schools from applicability of s.12 (1) (c). Since then and especially after financially stressed state governments started foot-dragging on the issue of reimbursing the cost of poor neighbourhood children admitted into private schools under the formula of the Act, private schools have devised several ways and means to avoid admitting poor children into their elementary classes. While the Supreme Court’s logic exempting boarding schools from admitting poor children under s.12 (1) (c) is self-explanatory, the definition of ‘minority schools’ has prompted considerable litigation. Private school managements contended that apart from institutions promoted by religious minorities, schools promoted by linguistic minorities of every state are also exempt. Thus a large number of private schools have successfully skirted provisions of s.12 (1) (c). Moreover, several state governments, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, further diluted s.12 (1) (c) by amending Rules under the Act by decreeing that private schools would be exempt from admitting poor children if there is a government school within 1 km of poor neighbourhoods. In April, a writ petition was filed before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay high court by an NGO — Yavatmal-based Parivartan Samajik Bahuddeshiya Sanstha — questioning the constitutional validity of this amended Rule. The petitioner contends this Rule change further dilutes s.12 (1) (c) and exempts private schools from the responsibility of educating poor children in their neighbourhood as mandated by the RTE Act. The petitioners’ plea was heard on…
