DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The obligation of a 'neighbourhood school' to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged Sec. of our society, to the extent of twenty-five percent of the class strength, under Sec. 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India, but also a substantive measure in securing the preambular objective of 'equality of status'. The constitutional declaration of the right under Article 21A, followed by the statutory mandate under Sec. 3 of the Act for free and compulsory elementary education can be realised only with effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. We have held that ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority. Equally, Courts, be it constitutional or civil, must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the right.

(2.) We need not refer to the detailed facts of the case as by the time our attention was drawn to this special leave petition, the time within which effective relief could be granted to the petitioner had long passed. The petitioner had approached a 'neighbourhood school' for admitting his children for free and compulsory elementary education way back in 2016. It is his case that, even though information through RTI indicated that seats were available, the neighbourhood school did not respond. Therefore, he was compelled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, by the order impugned before us, the High Court turned back the petitioner on the ground that, 'the petitioner had failed to take up appropriate steps to admit his kids in the free education quota, the petitioner must blame himself.' The 'appropriate steps' that the High Court was referring to pertained to the alleged failure to apply as per the online procedure for filling up the twenty-five percent seats for children of weaker and disadvantaged Sec. . This is despite the fact that the primary education officer of the Zila Parishad, Gondia had addressed a letter to the Deputy Education Officer to admit petitioner's children, though online procedure had not been followed, as his house is within 3 kms of the neighbourhood school and also that he comes from a very poor family. Further, the petitioner had also placed before the authorities RTI information that 648 seats are still lying vacant.

(3.) Unfortunately, the Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order has been pending in this Court for a long time without appropriate orders and many years have passed by. The standard submission that we hear at the Bar, when such unfortunate cases are called for hearing is that. 'the matter has become infructuous'. Sadly, this is true for the purpose of decision making on the facts of this case. However, in order to ensure that this situation shall not revisit parents like the petitioner again and again, we considered it appropriate to take up the case for precedent making and decided to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures for complying with the mandate of Sec. 12. We, therefore, appointed Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned senior counsel, as the amicus curiae to assist the Court.