The Supreme Court issued a notice and sought response of the authorities in a plea alleging dismal state of government schools in Bihar and non-implementation of the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in the government schools.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge brought by petitioner to an order of the Patna High Court, which dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed raising similar issue.
The petitioner team, Social Jurist, which is an Civil Rights group had carried out an assessment across Bihar’s government schools and found severe deficiencies in crucial amenities, including proper classrooms, sanitation facilities, and sufficient number of teachers therein. The plea stated that the schools in East Champaran and West Champaran districts were allegedly found to be in a hazardous condition, posing threats to the lives and well-being of students and teaching staff.
It further asserted that the distribution of mid-day meals among students was not being conducted in a hygienic and dignified manner. Furthermore, more than 50% of enrolled students were consistently absent from these schools.
The petitioner submitted before the Patna High Court that the 2009 Act was not being effectively implemented in Bihar. Along With the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), it filed a comprehensive report detailing the status of the 27 government schools compiled by its team.
The Patna High Court rejected the PIL as misconceived, mentioning that the petitioner had come forward with its own report, on the basis of which it was seeking directions, but the same could not be entertained.
The court added that on the basis of a counter-affidavit filed by the Bihar government, it was concluded that all steps were being taken to update primary level education in Bihar and that the schools were being regularly monitored by calling for reports from District Education Officers. Disappointed by the order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.