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:

SC directs UP government to immediately sanction prosecution of teacher accused of instructing students to beat Muslim child

Supreme Court: Directs UP government to comply with directions and implement wholistic reparations

Lack of compliance with orders of the Supreme Court by UP government in Muzaffarnagar slapping case- a worrisome and “shocking” spectacle

The post No quality education without teaching equality, secularism, fraternity value: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A detailed look back at this 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.

The trajectory of the case so far

CJP and Sabrang India have already tracked the progress of the case till November 2023, this article is a follow up to the same. To read the earlier updates on the case please visit here [1], [2], [3].

Following the order passed by the SC on November 10, 2023, in which it reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh (UP) state government for not conducting the counselling of either the victim nor the other children, it also asked Tata Institute of Social Science (TISS) to “suggest the mode and manner of extending counselling to the victim child and to the other children involved in the incident”^[1] and to “suggest the names of the expert child Counsellors and other experts in the field available in the State who can do counselling under the supervision of TISS”^[2]. Furthermore, the court asked TISS to prepare the report on the assessment made.

Thereafter on December 11, 2023, the court noted that it has carefully perused the report prepared by TISS regarding counselling of students, and ordered the State Government officials to coordinate with TISS experts to chart out the modalities for implementing the recommendations contained in the report. Directing the State to file compliance report, the order notes, “We direct the State to file a report containing the details about the manner in which the State proposes to implement the recommendations in the report of TISS. The State response shall be filed by January 17, 2024.”^[3]

Pertinently, Justice AS Oka, while hearing the case on January 12, observed that, “‘all this happened because the State did not do what it was expected to do. The State should be very concerned about the manner in which this incident happened’”.^[4] To this, the counsel for the State Government protested, saying that the incident took place in a private school.

During the same hearing, advocate Garima Prashad, appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh, filed an affidavit regarding the implementation of the recommendations contained in the TISS report. When asked by the bench whether the victim child is still studying in the same school, Prashad responded that “We have taken the necessary steps, but my only concern is that a seven-year-old child has to go to school which is 28 kilometres away.” She added that this is also contrary to the Right to Education Act, which mandates that students of classes I to V should reside within a 1-km radius of the school and students belonging to classes VI to VIII within a 3-km radius, India Today reported^[5].

Responding to this, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shadan Farasat, noted that the “That’s the only good school available and the father is ready to take the child to school”. He countered the argument of the State, pointing out that “It is the school which was within this radius that caused harm to the child”. The response was in regard to the child being admitted in the private school affiliated to CBSE. Farasat also contended that, the affidavit submitted by the State Government regarding the recommendations contained in the TISS report was “inadequate”.

Following the SC order in November 2023, Basic Siksha Adhikari (BSA) at Muzaffarnagar, Shubham Shukla was quoted as saying, “‘I then visited Shardein School, a well-known educational institution in the city, and got him admitted. The boy was provided a seat there in class II and will restart his schooling from Monday. His uniforms and syllabus have been provided. All the educational expenses will be taken care of by the state.’”, the Times of India reported^[6]

Following these developments, the SC bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in their order dated January 12, 2024, said that the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shadan Farasat, is free to give his suggestions to the State after consulting the parents of the child, so that the recommendations of the report can be implemented, and listed the matter on February 9, 2024^[7].

It was at the hearing of the case on February 9, 2024 that the bench sharply chastened the UP government and expressed its strong disapproval for not complying with its orders. The order reads, “We find from the affidavits filed on record that the State has not undertaken counselling of the other children, who were participants and witnesses in terms of the suggestions of TISS. There was an element of urgency in counselling. We direct the State Government to immediately implement the suggestions in TISS report about the counselling of other children, who were participants and witnesses in the corporal punishment incident. Compliance affidavit shall be filed on or before 28.02.2024.”^[8]

During the hearing, Farasat had brought to the notice of the court the fact that the affidavit submitted by the State did not name the agency appointed to conduct the counselling of the said students^[9]. To this, the counsel for the state of Uttar Pradesh, Garima Prashad, responded that the officials had held discussions with one agency, Childline, and will file a better affidavit showing the steps taken^[10]. The bench then dismally observed that “There has been a complete breach of our directions. None of the kids have been given counselling. This has to be in letter and spirit.” The court also directed the State to comply with its other directions issued in the order dated September 25, 2023 regarding implementation of the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, and Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011, and granted one month’s time to report the compliance^[11].

It was following this rebuke that, on March 1, 2024 Uttar Pradesh Government informed the SC that it has implemented the recommendations of TISS report and started counselling workshops for students who were encouraged by their teacher to slap their fellow classmate, as per the Indian Express report^[12]. The workshops will continue till April 24 as per the affidavit filed by the State Education Department. The state government has also been asked to file a status report on the workshops conducted by the end of April. Another issue emerged during the court hearing on March 1, when the counsel for the petitioner raised the issue of travel reimbursement for the victim child being stopped by the State Government.^[13] Though no written order was passed by the court in this regard, it orally asked the State Government to release the pending amount and suggested that some help can be taken from a charitable trust for the same. For other matters relating to the implementation of RTE Act and Rules and relevant court orders, the next hearing is scheduled on April 15.

How the present case violates several provisions of the law

The present incident of hate crime against a minor school student is not only reprehensible for vitiating the classroom environment but also transforms the safe learning spaces of such classrooms, which should ideally teach children the values of fraternity, dignity, religious harmony, and scientific temperament, into factories of hate propaganda, misinformation, and bigotry.

The incident also violates the right of children to a safe educational environment under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the RTE Act, which completely prohibits subjecting a child to physical punishment or mental harassment. In addition, sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of UP RTE Rules, 2011, states that 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 Supreme Court in the earlier hearing in September 2023 had also referred to detailed guidelines for eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools as laid down by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)^[14], a statutory body for ensuring the rights of children. Incidentally, when the video of the incident emerged in public, NCPCR wrote to the police to file an FIR against the teacher and submit a copy of the inquiry report.

While the Constitution of India under Article 21A provides the fundamental right to free and compulsory elementary education to all children between the age of 6-14, and the complementary RTE Act provides the framework to implement the same, the role of (civil) society and most importantly teachers in creating harmonious and hate free environment is prerequisite to secure the most basic of our fundamental rights.

(The author is part of CJP’s Legal Research Team)

[1] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 49, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_9_49_48228_Order_10-Nov-2023.pdf.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 53, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_8_53_48975_Order_11-Dec-2023.pdf.

[4] Krishnadas Rajagopal, “U.P. Muslim student slapping case | Supreme Court says State failed in its role”, The Hindu, January 12, 2024. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/muzaffarnagar-slapping-case-sc-directly-criticises-uttar-pradesh-in-case-of-teacher-goading-students-to-slap-muslim-classmate/article67733661.ece.

[5] Kanu Sarda, “Muzaffarnagar slapping case: Top Court says state did not act the way it should have”, India Today, January 12, 2024. https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/muzaffarnagar-student-slapping-case-supreme-court-says-up-did-not-act-as-it-should-have-2488071-2024-01-12.

[6] Mohd Dilshad, “Boy in UP school slapping row admitted to ‘good’ institute”, The Times of India, November 19, 2023. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/boy-in-up-school-slapping-row-admitted-to-good-institute/articleshow/105320508.cms.

[7] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 48, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_7_48_49426_Order_12-Jan-2024.pdf.

[8] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 45, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_7_45_50289_Order_09-Feb-2024.pdf.

[9] Abraham Thomas, “‘Why weren’t students counselled’: SC rebukes UP in Muzaffarnagar slapping case”, Hindustan Times, February 9, 2024. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/why-weren-t-students-counselled-sc-rebukes-up-in-muzaffarnagar-slapping-case-101707494991430.html.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 45, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_7_45_50289_Order_09-Feb-2024.pdf

[12] “Slapping by classmates: Counselling workshops being held at Muzaffarnagar school for students, UP tells SC”, Indian Express, March 2, 2024. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/slapping-by-classmates-counselling-workshops-being-held-at-muzaffarnagar-school-for-students-up-tells-sc-9191211/.

[13] Srishti Ojha, “UP student slapping case: Top Court seeks status report from state on counselling”, India Today, March 1, 2024. https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/up-student-slapping-case-supreme-court-seeks-status-report-on-counselling-workshop-2509180-2024-03-01.

[14] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406/2023, Item No. 50, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/35839/35839_2023_11_50_47191_Order_25-Sep-2023.pdf.

Related:

SC directs UP government to immediately sanction prosecution of teacher accused of instructing students to beat Muslim child

Lack of compliance with orders of the Supreme Court by UP government in Muzaffarnagar slapping case- a worrisome and “shocking” spectacle

Outrageous, hate corrodes UP classrooms

Hate Hatao: CJP’s Campaign Against Division and Discrimination

The post Supreme Court: Directs UP government to comply with directions and implement wholistic reparations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is also essential to note that this was not the first time that the Court had expressed disappointment with how the state had handled the current case. In another prior hearing, the Court had questioned at the delay in the registration of the FIR (First Information Report) filed in the case. The court had also voiced their dissatisfaction at the omission of allegations regarding communal hatred from the FIR lodged against the teacher. During the said hearing of September 25, the Supreme Court had observed that there was a “prima facie failure on the part of the State” to comply with the mandate of the Right to Education Act, which prohibits any form of physical and mental harassment of students and their discrimination on the basis of religion and caste.

Brief about the case:

In the month of August, a video of a Muslim boy being beaten up, slapped and humiliated in front of the entire class in a school in Uttar Pradesh surfaced on social media. The video showed the accused teacher, namely Tripta Tyagi, making communal comments and ordering her students to slap a Muslim classmate for not doing his homework. The incident created outrage on social media. A case was registered against a teacher in Muzaffarnagar who allegedly encouraged her students to slap a classmate.

The FIR was registered against the school teacher under Section 323 (punishment for causing voluntary hurt) and Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The petition was filed by activist Tushar Gandhi in the beginning of September. The petition sought for an independent, proper and time-bound investigation in the case. The petition further urged for the invocation of several offences prescribed under IPC including Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and Section 298 (Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person) of IPC. Direction had also been sought for investigation of offences under JJ Act.

Orders on counselling and admission of child victim

Counselling: It is essential to highlight here that during the hearing held on October 30, advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for petitioner Tushar Gandhi, had provided that the father of the child had contacted them and brought to their notice that the child victim is traumatised and does not want to meet or interact with anybody after the incident.

The court had also been appraised of the affidavit submitted by the father of the victim which highlighted the victim being in a state of trauma. The order states “Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tendered an affidavit dated 28th October, 2023 of the father of the victim child. He states that as an officer of the Court, he has tried to interact with the victim child, but found that the child is severely traumatized.”

Keeping in view of this, the Court had noted with the utmost that “When it comes to the future of the victim child and his welfare, the state cannot treat this litigation as adversarial.” The bench had then However, during the present hearing, the ordered the asked the state government to conduct ensure that counselling of the alleged victim and other students involved in the incident takes place by professional counsellors.

Admission: During the hearings, the question of admitting the child victim to a school in UP was also discussed by the Supreme Court. On the hearing of November 6, the Bench was briefed by the counsel for the education department that the father of the child victim has sought admission in a CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) school rather than a UP board school. Advocate Farasat had further informed that the school in question is a good private school in the area which provides seats for economically weaker sections.

The education department, however, pointed out that since school in which the victim’s father was keen to get him admitted was a private school, a committee had been formed by them. Upon this response, Justice Oka expressed his surprised and questioned the necessity of a committee proposed to be constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government to facilitate the victim’s admission to a private school. Coming down harshly on the education department, Justice Abhay S Oka asked, “Why do you have to appoint a committee for this as well? Please don’t take such a stand that you want to appoint a committee. What will the committee do?” the report of the LiveLaw provided.

Not only this, but the court had also orally directed the State to ensure that a senior government officer spoke to the principal of the school in which the child’s father was keen to get him admitted. Justice Oka said, “Please see that some senior government officer talks to the principal of the school. It’ll be done. I don’t think any school will say no given the facts of the case.” The bench had ordered for there to be compliance with this order before the November 10 hearing.

Remarks by the Supreme Court on non-compliance by the State with its orders

On November 10, the division bench of the Supreme Court had admonished the state government and it’s Education Department for not complying with the orders passed by the Court regarding providing counselling to the child victim in the case. At the outset, the Bench commented that issue of the lack of proper counselling provided to the child and other students still remains. The court questioned Advocate Sanjay Jain, appearing for the state of UP, to provide the affidavit showcasing the compliance by the State on counselling and state. “Where is compliance regarding counselling, admission? There are several aspects. There’s no compliance by the state? Where’s the affidavit?” Justice Oka had asked.

To this above question, Advocate Sanjay Jain had informed the Court that that a team with three doctors, one psychiatrist, a nurse, and a community person has been formed for counselling. Justice Oka had responded by questioning the adequacy and competency of professionals engaged in counselling given the seriousness of the incident.  “Who are those professionals? In such a serious incident, can a nurse, or secretary do counselling? Whether you appointed a child psychologist?” Justice Oka asked.

The counsel responded to the questions put forth by the bench by providing that a psychiatrist has been appointed by the state. “We’ve appointed a psychiatrist,” the counsel informed as per LiveLaw. To this, Justice Oka further rebuked the state that, “There’s a difference- we expect the state to understand the difference between a psychiatrist and a child psychologist.”

The bench then enquired about the steps taken by the state on getting the child victim admitted to the CBSE private school the father of the child was keen on getting admission into. Justice Oka asked the counsel representing the State “Where’s the response to the affidavit filed by father? Not a single compliance by the state. He’s not been admitted to a single school.”

The Counsel tried to assure that necessary directions were given by the State and only the father of the child victim is left to fulfil the formalities. Questioning the submission made by the counsel, Justice OKA asked Advocate Jain to present any compliance affidavit. As per the report of LiveLaw, Justice Oka remarked, “Show us that the school has agreed to admit students. First, produce a letter by school. There’s no compliance by state, who’s the Secretary? We’ll procure his presence. Show us a single statement- We’ve gone through the affidavit meticulously”.

In furtherance to this, the Court inquired about the responsibility for expenses for schooling, which the counsel specified would fall under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) scheme. Expressing scepticism about the state’s willingness to act without a direct order, Justice Oka stated “Unless we pass an order, they won’t do anything. Whether you want to comply, or you want to do face-saving?”

The Counsel expressed his willingness to comply with the court order. The bench voiced its concern that the affected student was left in distress for so long, and added “The Order passed on 25th September, now we’re on 10th November. The students are treated like this in your state and the state remains silent”.

The Court dismaying noted that “We find that the State of UP and in particular the Education Department has not complied with various orders passed by the court from time to time starting from 25th September. No proper counselling has been conducted for victim child and other children involved. To say the least, the approach of the state, as can be seen affidavit, is shocking”, as reported by LiveLaw.

Orders passed by the Supreme Court regarding counselling of the child victim:

Taking matters into their own hands, the Court then appointed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to help with the counselling of the involved children. As per the order, the Court stated “We, therefore, appoint TISS to suggest the mode and manner of extending counselling to the students. TISS will also suggest the names of expert child counsellors who can extend counselling under the supervision of TISS,” as per the LiveLaw report.

In addition to this, the Court also directed the Principal Secretary of the Education Department to appear virtually for the next hearing scheduled on December 11, 2023. The bench also warned of taking strong action if the orders passed by the Supreme Court are not complied with well in advance to the next date of hearing.  The court ordered “We direct Principal Secretary of Education Department to be present virtually. To avoid any strong action by the court, we hope and trust that the Secretary will personally look into the matter and ensure that the order passed by this are complied by in letter and spirit and affidavits are placed at least 3 days in advance before next date.”

Related:

SC directs UP government to immediately sanction prosecution of teacher accused of instructing students to beat Muslim child

Outrageous, hate corrodes UP classrooms

Hate Speeches on the rise in UP and Uttarakhand

UP: Another teacher asks student to slap classmate, complaint lodged

UP: School question paper, on ‘Indian Muslim Terrorism’, calls for India to prepare for war with Pak

Dalit youth hung upside down and tortured for alleged goat theft in Telangana

The post Lack of compliance with orders of the Supreme Court by UP government in Muzaffarnagar slapping case- a worrisome and “shocking” spectacle appeared first on SabrangIndia.