Introduction
The Bombay High Court has recently declared an amendment by the Maharashtra government, which exempted private unaided schools from reserving 25% of their seats for disadvantaged children if a government or aided school existed within a one-kilometer radius, as unconstitutional. This landmark decision reinforces the principles enshrined in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and upholds the right to education for children from weaker sections of society.
Background of the Amendment
The Maharashtra government had amended the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, earlier this year. The amendment sought to exempt private unaided schools from the mandatory 25% reservation for children from disadvantaged groups in Class I or pre-school if a government-run or government-aided school was located within one kilometer of the private school. This decision was seen as a significant shift in the state’s education policy, aiming to reduce the burden on private schools.
Legal Challenge and Arguments
The amendment was challenged by Aswini Jitendra Kable through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Kable argued that the amendment violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 21A (Right to Education) of the Indian Constitution. Kable also cited precedents from other High Courts, including Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court, where similar amendments had been struck down.
The State defended its amendment by arguing that the exclusion of private unaided schools from the RTE quota was not absolute but conditional, applicable only to schools within a one-kilometer radius of government and aided schools. The State contended that under Section 6 of the RTE Act, the government and local authorities were obligated to establish schools, and thus the inclusion of private unaided schools within this radius was unnecessary.
High Court's Ruling
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar found the amendment to be unconstitutional and ultra vires to the RTE Act. The court emphasized that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that private unaided schools reserve 25% of their seats for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups, and this mandate applies uniformly without exceptions based on proximity to government or aided schools.
Implications of the Decision
The Bombay High Court’s ruling reaffirms the commitment to ensuring educational opportunities for all children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The court’s decision underscores that the right to education is a fundamental right and cannot be diluted by state amendments that create exemptions. This ruling serves as a significant precedent and a reminder that states must align their policies with the objectives of the RTE Act.
Broader Impact on Education Policy
This decision is expected to have a far-reaching impact on education policy, not only in Maharashtra but across India. By striking down the amendment, the Bombay High Court has set a strong precedent that could influence similar cases in other states. It reinforces the idea that educational policies should prioritize inclusivity and equal opportunity, adhering strictly to the principles laid out in the RTE Act.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's judgment marks a pivotal moment in the enforcement of the Right to Education in India. By declaring the Maharashtra government's amendment unconstitutional, the court has upheld the fundamental rights of children from disadvantaged sections to access quality education. This decision highlights the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that state policies align with constitutional mandates and the broader goals of social justice and equality in education.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.