A recent case in the Delhi High Court exposes a harrowing tale of blatant subversion of a welfare scheme enacted for extending the benefit of quality education to the economically weaker sections of society by the more affluent and well-connected
The Delhi High Court recently directed the Delhi government to increase the income threshold for admission to schools under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh annually, pending amendments to the existing law in this regard. The case pertains to a parent who secured his son’s admission to Sanskriti School, New Delhi, under the EWS category through fraudulent means.
A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Master Singham. The Court said that Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara, which literally translates to “speak the truth, pursue righteousness”, referenced from the Taittiriya Upanishad, reflects the conviction of the ancient education system of India. It is a truism that nothing could refine and develop human intellect except vidya (education). It is the duty of an egalitarian society to strive towards accessible education for all, guided by the tenets of morality.
The present case, the Court observed, enunciates a harrowing tale of blatant subversion of a welfare scheme enacted for extending the benefit of quality education to the EWS. The case reflects a tormenting state of affairs where the opulent class is reaping the benefits of EWS reservation at the expense of the economically marginalised candidates.
The Court said that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, with an objective of fulfilling the aspirations of students belonging to economically downtrodden sections of the society to attain quality education, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, passed an Order, namely Delhi School Education (free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections and Disadvantage Group) Order, 2011, providing free seats for such students.
The petitioner in the case was a minor student whose father got the requisite income certificate issued by the Tehsildar in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (New Delhi district) to secure admission for his son in Sanskriti School, New Delhi. The said certificate assessed the annual income of the petitioner’s father to be Rs 67,200, from all sources. The petitioner got admitted in the school in 2013, availing the quota for EWS on the basis of the aforementioned income certificate of his father. After the admission, the petitioner continued to study in School as an EWS category candidate till 2018.
However, the controversy began thereafter when the father of the petitioner wrote letters to the principal of the school along with the admission form of the sibling of the petitioner, seeking alteration in the category of petitioner from EWS to the general category and change in address of the petitioner’s residence. Since the letter raised questions, it was forwarded to Directorate of Education and accordingly an enquiry from the District Magistrate, Jamnagar House, Delhi (DM, Jamnagar) about the income certificate of the father of the petitioner was directed.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s father has admitted his income to be exceedingly above the required threshold for the concerned year during the course of proceedings. Since his income for the subsequent years is also much higher than the requisite income, he ought to have immediately moved an application for altering the category of petitioner or taken any other appropriate recourse which could have established the bonafide of the petitioner or his father. Rather, the petitioner continued uninterrupted study for subsequent years, thereby depriving a deserving child who could have secured admission in lieu of the petitioner.
The Court observed that it can be inferred that the legislative intent behind the enactment of legislations in benefit of the economically marginalised sections was to ensure that the shackles of poverty are broken to help children from weaker sections to gain quality education. The EWS reservation in schools is, thus, not merely an enticing promise, but a sincere attempt to maintain equitable standards of education for all in a multifaceted socio-economic structure. The Court said that as the custodian of the Constitution, which seeks to weed out arbitrariness, it cannot allow anyone to overwhelm the scheme of the welfare legislation in question by manipulation.
While adjudicating the case, it came to the notice of the Court that the minimum wage of an unskilled labourer in Delhi is Rs 17,494 per month, but startlingly, as per the existing eligibility criterion, even children of such labourers are not entitled for the benefits of the EWS scheme for securing admission in schools. It is, at any prudent stretch of imagination, too far-fetched to assume that the total parental income of a child seeking admission under EWS category and living in a metropolitan city like Delhi shall be below Rs 1,00,000 per annum.
The Court observed that the threshold income of Rs 1,00,000 does not precisely reflect the economic hardships faced by the families in contemporary times, and therefore, it ought to change with the dynamism of the economic structure of the society. A comparative analysis of the said threshold income criterion in the NCT of Delhi with rest of the states and Union Territories would signify that the NCT of Delhi has the lowest requisite income criteria as compared to the amount of Rs 8 lakh per annum followed by most of the states. The Court further said that it is apparently forcing the common people, who otherwise fall in the bottomline of the economic strata, to resort to unfair means to secure admission for their children or to keep their hands off from the benefits of welfare legislation.
The Court further observed that to respect the letter and spirit of the law, it is imperative that the responsible instrumentality diligently supervises the implementation of the law. A law, however, benevolent in its intentions, remains inefficacious unless those entrusted with its execution and implementation judiciously discharge their duties. This gains greater relevance in the context of beneficial legislations, which attend to the needs of individuals marginalised on the fringes of society.
The Court said that it is significant to reminisce the excerpts of the famous “Grammar of Anarchy” speech of Dr BR Ambedkar who remarked: “Because I feel, however good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot.”
In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009, that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private, unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to “weaker section and disadvantaged group”. The verdict was given by a three-judge bench of then chief justice SH Kapadia, Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice KS Radhakrishnan.
The 86th (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002, added Article 21A to the Constitution which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children from the age of six to 14 years as a fundamental right.
The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to give effect to this amendment. The Act provides that children between the ages of six and 14 years have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. It also lays down the minimum norms that each school has to follow in order to get legal recognition. The Act required government schools to provide free and compulsory education to all admitted children. Similarly, aided schools have to provide free and compulsory education proportionate to the funding received, subject to a minimum of 25%.
In the latest case, the High Court stated that it is deeply agonising to see the complete apathy and lackadaisical attitude of the State authorities which is at the helm of protecting the educational rights of the economically weaker sections of the society, which flow from the fundamental Right to Education.
—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau