Right To Education Act still has some arbitrariness

Right To Education Act still has some arbitrariness

The Right to Education Act evolved so much in the past decade. But there is still some arbitrariness in the RTE Act. The reservations for Arthachar or Economically Weaker Sections are still based on Income and not on Asset Filters.

Introduction of Right To Education Act

The Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 in India is a horizontal enforceable Fundamental Right. That is, the Right is enforceable against the State and Individuals.

But the Act have some arbitrary discrimination against private institutions and favours minority educational institutions.

Evolution of Right To Education Act

The Constitution of India, which was adopted on 26 November 1949, included the Directive Principles in its original form. Article 45 of the Directive Principle of State Policy stated that the state will strive to provide free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14. Article 45 also mentions that "it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws."

• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka case 1992: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 645) also known as the "right to education case", was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India which held that not providing free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years is illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Unnikrishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh case 1993: The Supreme Court case Unnikrishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) was a turning point decision for Indian education policy. In this case, the SC found fault in government schools and said that if they did not adhere to the prescribed syllabus, it would amount to gross negligence. It also held that private schools had to assist the government in educating every child up to the age of 14.
• 86th constitutional amendment of 2002: The 86th constitutional amendment of 2002 made the right to education a fundamental right like the other inalienable rights of a citizen. The government aimed to achieve universalization of education at the elementary level by admitting each and every child at the age of six into the elementary school (because children are admitted to class II at six years).

The arbitrariness in Right To Education Act

The Pramati Educational Trust vs the Union of India case, 2014, which relates to the amendment in the Right to Education Act, (RTE), 2012, has generated a lot of controversies.

The entire case revolves around the interpretation of Section 12 (1) of RTE which states that all private schools shall admit in Class I at least 25 percent of children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.

The same was to be done as per the admissions policy applicable to government-aided aided schools.

This created an arbitrariness in the Act. This has the following problems in the RTE Act,

• Onus on private unaided schools is higher than the government schools
• Minority institutions both aided and unaided were exempt.
• According to Article 21, there is no discrimination between minority and non-minority institutions. But, the RTE Act has.
• There is no explicable or rational explanation for leaving minority institutions, especially the unaided ones.

Way Forward

A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has directed that minority schools are also subject to no-detention policy in accordance with the RTE Act. The judgment came in a plea filed by Sobha George which concerned a fundamental question on Section 16(no-detention policy).

Further, the court also held that the minority institutions will not subject to the RTE Act. But they are subject to the fundamental rights of the Constitution. The Court demands two fundamental questions on Section 16.

Whether the provisions such as Section 16 of RTE are statutory right or Fundamental Right?

If it is the Fundamental Right, then the minority institutions will not claim the exemption under the Pramati Educational Trust case.