SATYAPAL ANAND Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition as Public Interest Litigation. His contention is that he is a well known PIL Litigant in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has earlier also filed large number of PILs for seeking education (as stated by the petitioner). He has filed this petition for securing Schools where no schools are available and to provide free education to children upto 14 years of age. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of constitutional provisions as contained under Article 45, 46, 334 and 335 of the Constitution of India, the State is under an obligation to provide free education and therefore an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the respondents to provide free education to children upto 14 years of age and to explain why education has not been provided since 26/1/2060 (date as mentioned in the writ petition). The matter was argued at length.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner has not placed the facts and figures before this Court in order to substantiate the averments made in the petition. Not only this, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which is an Act to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years has been enacted by the parliament in the 60 th year of the Republic of India and the same has come into force w.e.f. 1/4/10. The Act is certainly a complete Code in itself and the provisions of the Act of 2009 are being followed by the Central Government as well as by the State Government.

(3.) The apex court in the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, 2011 7 SCC 639 in paragraphs 8 to 13 has held as under :