SIMI A.C. Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A catalyst of an incident occurred on 25.09.2014 in the School of the eighth respondent, attracting the interest of the media about the incident, and that of the officials about the very existence of the school. The incident is described as a catalyst, for it only plays, in my view, a minor role, if at all, in deciding the existential justification of the school in statutory terms. Though the writ petition begins with a flourish of exhortation on the issue of corporal punishment, the said issue is being taken care of under a separate redressal mechanism, which is said to have been set in motion by the very petitioner. Accordingly, the alleged incident of meeting out corporal punishment to a pupil in the school is only incidentally touched upon without much elaboration.

(2.) MOVING from abstract to the concrete, I briefly set out the facts, as have been pleaded by the petitioner, thus: The petitioner is the mother of a six -year -old UKG pupil studying at that material point of time in the School of the eighth respondent. On 25.09.2014, the said pupil was allegedly subjected to corporal punishment by the headmistress, the seventh respondent. Expatiating further, it is to be stated that the pupil was allegedly locked up in a dog kennel as a measure of punishment for talking to other pupils in the class room. The issue caught the attention of the media on 29.09.2014, when the petitioner also lodged a complaint with Peroorkkada Police Station, which in turn registered Crime No. 1196/2014 (Exhibit P2) against the class teacher, as well as the seventh respondent, the headmistress, for the alleged offences under Sections 317 and 342 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

(3.) ON 29.09.2014, directed by the third respondent, the fourth and sixth respondents inspected the school. Having found that the school lacked proper facilities, the said authorities recommended for the closure of the school by shifting the pupils to nearby aided/Government schools. Acting on the said inspection report, the third respondent issued Exhibit P1 proceedings closing down the eighth respondent school with immediate effect. He has also observed that the nearby aided and Government schools should admit the pupils from the said school without insisting on transfer certificates. The parents were also permitted to submit birth certificates of their wards to the respective schools within one month. Incidentally, in this order the third respondent refers to Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity and convenience), and observes that the conduct of the seventh and eighth respondents is violative of the said provision. As could be seen later, the learned counsel for the seventh and eighth respondents made this reference of the third respondent to Section 17 of the Act his sheet anchor to contend that the direction for closure of the school is beyond the purview of Section 17 of the Act.