ARUN DIGAMBAR JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who is stated to be a director of an educational institution at Solapur and in the field of education for nearly forty three years, has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('The Right to Education Act'). Section 16 of the Right to Education Act provides as follows :

(2.) The Right to Education Act was enacted in order to provide for free and compulsory education to all the children between the ages 6 and 14. Article 21A of the Constitution was inserted by the Eighty Sixth Amendment in 2002. Article 21 A stipulates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children between the ages 6 and 14 in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine.

(3.) The prohibition which has been enacted in Section 16 of the Act against holding back a child and the expulsion of a child from school until the completion of elementary education, is in pursuance of the legislative policy of ensuring universal access to elementary education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen. A child who is held back for want of an adequate 'performance', assessed generally with reference to conventional evaluation methods such as examinations is placed in a position of disadvantage in relation to his or her peers. A child who is held back and not allowed to progress to the next standard suffers from an intense psychological trauma resulting in a loss of self worth by being unable to attain the same level of proficiency as his or her peers and friends. This does not reflect a failure of the child but the inability of the teacher to address the needs of the child. The child is being conditioned by a social system which provides a disadvantaged environment. The Act casts an obligation on teachers in Section 24(d) to assess the learning ability of each child and to accordingly supplement additional instructions as are required. The Act casts obligations on the State and upon local authorities, schools and teachers to contribute in providing meaningful access to primary education on a universal basis to all children between the ages of six and fourteen until they complete elementary education. The obligation of doing so is assumed by the State. As a necessary corollary, a child who is a victim of a social handicap, is protected against the imposition of measures such as holding back or expulsion, which are liable to result in a loss of identity and add to prejudices. Children constitute the building blocks of society and define the future of the nation. Impressionable and vulnerable, children have to be moulded for the future by allowing them to grow up in an environment which promotes creativity, encourages a search for their intrinsic talents and fosters respect for diversity and inclusion. To hold back a child or expel a child from elementary school is wrong because it transfers the duty of an enabling school environment from the teacher to the taught. On the contrary, to render the Act responsive to the needs of our young, teachers have to be evaluated periodically and their skills have to be upgraded by the State by a continuous process of learning. Far from violating Article 21A, as the Petitioner asserts, the provisions of Section 16 advance its object.