The Gauhati High Court asked the Educational department of Assam to ensure implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act and disregard lame excuses given by private schools in Guwahati for not implementing the Act.
A Bench of Chief Justice (CJ) Sandeep Mehta and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury was responding to submissions made by counsel for the education department, who highlighted the reasons cited by private schools for delay in admitting students under Act.
While some schools said that they are centres for board examinations, certain other schools said that parents had not applied directly under the Act.
CJ Mehta told the department during the hearing on May 29 that these are lame excuses … do not [just] follow directions blindly, apply your mind.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition regarding the implementation of the RTE Act.
The counsel for the petitioner discussed status reports regarding pending admissions and refund of fees.
It was pointed out that four private schools in Guwahati had continued to violate the Act by either denying admission or charging fees from children seeking admissions under it.
The counsel for the education department stated that show-cause notices have been issued to those schools.
It was submitted that in some cases, the parents had not completed all formalities. He highlighted an example where a pupil bought only uniform but did not buy educational material from the concerned school.
The bench took exception to the argument.
The CJ said that articles purchased from the school is never voluntary. Virtually every school squeezes parents to do that. Do not even think of (relying on that).
While admitting that the portal for RTE admissions in the State was still at a ‘nascent’ stage, the counsel added that parents were still required to head to the schools to collect and submit the relevant forms.
The counsel for the petitioner said that the advocate for the South Point School had remarked outside the Court that students should take admission in government schools if they are so desirous of fee waivers.
The CJ remarked expressing his displeasure and asked why are you required to make such statements? Why do you need to retort outside the court?
The Court listed the matter for hearing next on Thursday, June 1.
During earlier hearings, the CJ had remarked that it was shameful that the High Court was having to make repeated interventions in the matter.
The Court had also taken strong exception to South Point School charging fees from students admitted under the RTE Act, and hinted at directions for derecognition if the allegations were found to be true.
The petitioner-organisation was represented by advocates Anita Verma (who is also a party in-person in the case) and Sudakshina Khanikar.