On the Right to Education Act...
The Right to Education Bill is now an Act. The passage of the Bill by Parliament in the session that ended last week was the culmination of a legal process that began in 1993. It was in that year that the Supreme Court held, in the Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh case, that children between 6 and 14 years of age have the fundamental right to education.
The Constitution 86th amendment of December 2002, inserted Article 21 A into the Constitution; this made education a fundamental right to children between 6 and 14 years of age. This was in accordance with the Supreme Court verdict in the Unnikrishnan case. It took as many as 9 years for Parliament to have such a simple insertion made. It will make sense to add that the Supreme Court verdict and the Constitution Amendment meant that the right to education, included in the Constitution by the founding fathers, as a Directive Principle in the form of Article 45 was now made into a Fundamental Right.
In other words, the Constitution amendment was an explicit recognition of a harsh truth: That the successive governments since 1951-52 did precious little to ensure that all children between 6 and 14 years of age went to school. The rights listed in the Directive Principles, in fact, were meant to be achieved within a decade of the Constitution coming into force. In other words, it was intended that India shall achieve universal education for children between 6 and 14 years of age before January 26, 1960. This did not happen.
And this simple truth was recognized by the highest court in 1993; acknowledged by the political establishment in 2002; and it took seven more years from then to give a legislative shape to the enabling clause in the Constituion; so much for the sake of education; and all the boasting about We being a democracy. Well. Let us now come to the reality. It is now possible to ensure that al children between 6 and 14 years of age have the access to education and in the event this is denied, it becomes a case for seeking a writ from the higher judiciary.
The Constitution 86th amendment of December 2002 had also made a substantive change to Article 45: It now says; ``The state shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.’’ This would mean that even if it is not a fundamental right, care and pre-primary educational facilities to children below six years are also an agenda of the state. This provision could mean that the government, as a matter of policy, will now have to set up child care centres and other such institutions. It is also possible, that in the event the state does not care to do this, like in the same way it ignored the responsibility of primary education, a judicial intervention in the same nature as Unnikrishnan is possible at some date.
Let us not wait until then. The society and its important arms such as the media, the civil society groups and all those who care for democracy, justice and the nation’s well being, now have a distinct scope for intervention and make universal primary education a reality within a definite time frame. For instance, it is now possible to set out on a campaign to ensure that all children between 6 and 14 years are in school and not seen working in the tea shops, workshops and hotels.
With the passage of the Right to Education Act, the realization of universal primary education is a Constitutional imperative and any violation of the fundamental right to education is an issue that the state will have to answer. In other words, it is possible for any one of us, citizens, to approach the high court with a writ petition, on behalf of a specific child or a specific group of children who are working in a specific place and are not sent to school. Such a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, will definitely be held valid as long as the facts of the case are established.
This, however, is only one aspect. There is, however, a far more important aspect and that is to ensure quality education. It is in this regard that the task before the media and the civil society groups become most pronounced. It is likely that the establishment reduces the Fundamental Right to Education as merely a provision to access to buildings that are called schools. This, after all, is the state of our government schools in many cases. The buildings are insufficient to hold the number of children and in many other cases there are fewer teachers than that are required in those schools.
And even where teachers are there, they are hardly interested in teaching and some are even known to behave like jail warders or ring masters in a circus company, whipping and beating up the children. These are issues that will have to be addressed and monitored by the media and the civil society groups as well as anyone and everyone who cares for the nation and its future. It is possible to achieve one of the many dreams that the founding fathers of the Constitution had put in our statute.
The Right to Education Bill is now an Act. The passage of the Bill by Parliament in the session that ended last week was the culmination of a legal process that began in 1993. It was in that year that the Supreme Court held, in the Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh case, that children between 6 and 14 years of age have the fundamental right to education.
The Constitution 86th amendment of December 2002, inserted Article 21 A into the Constitution; this made education a fundamental right to children between 6 and 14 years of age. This was in accordance with the Supreme Court verdict in the Unnikrishnan case. It took as many as 9 years for Parliament to have such a simple insertion made. It will make sense to add that the Supreme Court verdict and the Constitution Amendment meant that the right to education, included in the Constitution by the founding fathers, as a Directive Principle in the form of Article 45 was now made into a Fundamental Right.
In other words, the Constitution amendment was an explicit recognition of a harsh truth: That the successive governments since 1951-52 did precious little to ensure that all children between 6 and 14 years of age went to school. The rights listed in the Directive Principles, in fact, were meant to be achieved within a decade of the Constitution coming into force. In other words, it was intended that India shall achieve universal education for children between 6 and 14 years of age before January 26, 1960. This did not happen.
And this simple truth was recognized by the highest court in 1993; acknowledged by the political establishment in 2002; and it took seven more years from then to give a legislative shape to the enabling clause in the Constituion; so much for the sake of education; and all the boasting about We being a democracy. Well. Let us now come to the reality. It is now possible to ensure that al children between 6 and 14 years of age have the access to education and in the event this is denied, it becomes a case for seeking a writ from the higher judiciary.
The Constitution 86th amendment of December 2002 had also made a substantive change to Article 45: It now says; ``The state shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.’’ This would mean that even if it is not a fundamental right, care and pre-primary educational facilities to children below six years are also an agenda of the state. This provision could mean that the government, as a matter of policy, will now have to set up child care centres and other such institutions. It is also possible, that in the event the state does not care to do this, like in the same way it ignored the responsibility of primary education, a judicial intervention in the same nature as Unnikrishnan is possible at some date.
Let us not wait until then. The society and its important arms such as the media, the civil society groups and all those who care for democracy, justice and the nation’s well being, now have a distinct scope for intervention and make universal primary education a reality within a definite time frame. For instance, it is now possible to set out on a campaign to ensure that all children between 6 and 14 years are in school and not seen working in the tea shops, workshops and hotels.
With the passage of the Right to Education Act, the realization of universal primary education is a Constitutional imperative and any violation of the fundamental right to education is an issue that the state will have to answer. In other words, it is possible for any one of us, citizens, to approach the high court with a writ petition, on behalf of a specific child or a specific group of children who are working in a specific place and are not sent to school. Such a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, will definitely be held valid as long as the facts of the case are established.
This, however, is only one aspect. There is, however, a far more important aspect and that is to ensure quality education. It is in this regard that the task before the media and the civil society groups become most pronounced. It is likely that the establishment reduces the Fundamental Right to Education as merely a provision to access to buildings that are called schools. This, after all, is the state of our government schools in many cases. The buildings are insufficient to hold the number of children and in many other cases there are fewer teachers than that are required in those schools.
And even where teachers are there, they are hardly interested in teaching and some are even known to behave like jail warders or ring masters in a circus company, whipping and beating up the children. These are issues that will have to be addressed and monitored by the media and the civil society groups as well as anyone and everyone who cares for the nation and its future. It is possible to achieve one of the many dreams that the founding fathers of the Constitution had put in our statute.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
9:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home