On December 12, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial need to instil constitutional values like equality, secularism, and fraternity in students. This came while hearing a petition (Tushar Gandhi vs. State of UP & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 406 of 2023) by activist Tushar Gandhi about the 2023 Muzaffarnagar slapping incident.
The Court emphasized that the ultimate goal of education is to nurture responsible citizens who understand and uphold the core principles of the Indian Constitution. It urged the state to focus on this, especially as India celebrates 75 years of its Constitution. The Court granted the state a month to take action and submit an affidavit on the matter within six weeks.
Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the UP-government’s failure to follow earlier directions, particularly those regarding the inclusion of constitutional values in education. They reaffirmed that without teaching values of equality, secularism, and fraternity, true quality education cannot be achieved, as per a Live Law report.
Background of the Case
In the month of August 2023, a minor Muslim student was scolded and hurled communal remarks by his school teacher Tripta Tyagi, for allegedly not doing his homework. The teacher also asked other students to slap the minor boy. She could be heard saying, “Go to any Muslim child’s area…” suggesting a pejorative statement. Furthermore, she instructed the fellow students to “hit harder”. The video of the incident went viral on social media and created nationwide outrage.
Following the incident, Tushar Gandhi filed a petition in the Supreme Court to ensure independent investigation in the matter. Subsequently, the teacher was booked under Sections 302 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code, which are non-cognisable offences. Only after a long delay and rap from SC, the FIR was finally filed by the police incorporating the additional charges under Section 295A of IPC, which deals with acts that deliberately and maliciously outrage religious feelings of any class, and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which relates to punishment for cruelty to child.
The SC began hearing the petition in month of September 2023, and since then has issued several directions to the State Government with regards to the filing of FIR, invocation of relevant charges based on the evidence, admission of the victim student in the private school of their choice of school under the EWS quota, counselling of the victim and other students, and seeking compliance reports at various stages. The court has rebuked the State more than once for its repeated non-compliance of the court’s orders.
Prohibition on subjecting a child to physical punishment or mental harassment
On September 25, 2023, while hearing the petition, the division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mittal considering the manner in which police had delayed action, the bench directed the investigation shall be conducted under the supervision of a senior IPS Officer, and the court also directed for submitting the compliance report to this Court on this aspect and for reporting the progress made in the investigation.
Moreover, in relation to ensure the good quality in elementary education, the bench directed that this is the obligation of the local authorities under Section 9(h) of the RTE Act.
The bench noted that “under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the RTE Act, there is a complete prohibition on subjecting a child to physical punishment or mental harassment. If the allegations made by the parents of the victim are correct, this may be the worst kind of physical punishment imparted by a teacher inasmuch as the teacher directed other students to give physical punishment to the victim.”
“When the object of the RTE Act is to provide quality education, unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. There cannot be quality education if, in a school, a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. Thus, there is a prima facie failure on the part of the State to comply with the mandatory obligations under the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder” the strongly stressed.
No child is subjected to caste, class, religious or gender abuse or discrimination in the school
During the hearing on September 25, 2023, the bench observed that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules framed by the State Government, there is a mandate that the local authority shall be responsible for ensuring that no child is subjected to caste, class, religious or gender abuse or discrimination in the school.
The bench directed that “the State Government is under an obligation to enforce and implement the provisions of the RTE Act and the said Rules.”
The bench noted that the victim must have undergone trauma, and directed that “we direct the State Government to ensure that proper counselling is extended to the victim of the offence through an expert child counsellor. Even the other students, who were involved in the incident, in the sense that they allegedly followed the mandate issued by the teacher and assaulted the victim, need counselling by an expert child counsellor. The State Government will take immediate steps to do the needful by providing services of an expert child counsellor.”
State must make proper arrangements for providing quality education
The Court, in light of the gravity and sensitivity of the incident at hand, has directed that the State must address a critical issue. Specifically, the Court has emphasized that “the State will have to answer one more important question. The question is what educational facilities the State will extend to the victim of the offence for discharging its obligations under the RTE Act and Article 21A of the Constitution, which means that the State must make proper arrangements for providing quality education to the victim in terms of the provisions of the RTE Act. The State cannot expect the child to continue in the same school.”
Further directed that;
“The senior police officer appointed in terms of this order shall submit a compliance report as well as a report on steps taken in the investigation. He shall provide to this Court the copies of the transcripts of the conversation in the video clip of the alleged incident.”
“The State shall submit the compliance report on providing better education facilities to the victim of the offence and complying with the direction to undertake counselling of the victim and other students through an expert child psychologist. After looking at the report, we will consider whether further directions are required to be issued to ensure that there is no violation of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the RTE Act.”
“The RTE Act is aimed at providing compulsory elementary education to strengthen the social fabric of our democracy. The emphasis is on giving equal opportunities to all to get access to the facilities of education. Moreover, there are detailed guidelines for eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools laid down by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights established under the provisions of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. We direct the State Government to place on record the said guidelines.”
The Supreme Court order dated 25.09.2023 can be read here
Related:
Supreme Court: Directs UP government to comply with directions and implement wholistic reparations