‘RTE Act not applicable to minority institutions’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday
ruled that Right to Education (RTE) Act guaranteeing free education to students
from disadvantaged and weaker sections in the neighbourhood applied in full
vigour to private unaided schools but not minority educational institutions.
A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice A K Patnaik, Justice S J Mukhopadhaya, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice F M I Kalifulla said the 2009 Act intended to achieve the constitutional goal of equality of opportunity through inclusive elementary education to all.
“It also intended that private schools which did not receive government aid should also take the responsibility of providing free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections,” said Justice Patnaik, who wrote the judgment.
The court referred to Section 12(2) of the Act which provided that a private school admitting neighbourhood students from disadvantaged and weaker sections would be reimbursed at the rate of perchild expenditure incurred by the state or the actual fees charged from the child, whichever was less.
“Thus, ultimately, it is the state which is funding the expenses of free and compulsory education of the children belonging to weaker sections who are admitted to a private unaided school,” the bench said.
“We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of non-minority private schools that Article 21A (right to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution,” it said.
However, the constitution bench exempted minority schools. It said minority schools could not be put under a legal obligation to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children who were not members of the minority community which had established the school.
A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice A K Patnaik, Justice S J Mukhopadhaya, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice F M I Kalifulla said the 2009 Act intended to achieve the constitutional goal of equality of opportunity through inclusive elementary education to all.
“It also intended that private schools which did not receive government aid should also take the responsibility of providing free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections,” said Justice Patnaik, who wrote the judgment.
The court referred to Section 12(2) of the Act which provided that a private school admitting neighbourhood students from disadvantaged and weaker sections would be reimbursed at the rate of perchild expenditure incurred by the state or the actual fees charged from the child, whichever was less.
“Thus, ultimately, it is the state which is funding the expenses of free and compulsory education of the children belonging to weaker sections who are admitted to a private unaided school,” the bench said.
“We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of non-minority private schools that Article 21A (right to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution,” it said.
However, the constitution bench exempted minority schools. It said minority schools could not be put under a legal obligation to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children who were not members of the minority community which had established the school.
courtesy :
No comments:
Post a Comment