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.

In addition to this, the accused had also been charged with second proviso of section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). Notably, the second proviso of section 75 of the JJ Act pertains to the offence of assault or abuse upon a child, causing the minor unnecessary mental or physical suffering, by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal was hearing the seeking speedy investigation into the aforementioned case by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.

Brief background of 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 making communal comments and ordering her students to slap a Muslim classmate for not doing his homework. The incident created outrage on social media.

On August 26, 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).

Content of the petition:

The petition was filed by Tushar Gandhi in the beginning of September. The petition sought for an independent 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.

The petition had also submitted that there had been a breach of guidelines enumerated in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, that inter-alia requires the police to ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victims upon the FIR being lodged.

Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court bench noted that the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police of Meerut Range has provided that aforementioned sections have been invoked against the accused and that government sanction is awaited. The order stated, “A perusal of the Report submitted by the I.G., Meerut Range, Uttar Pradesh, shows that now the second proviso to Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been applied. Even Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) has been applied. It is stated that investigation has been completed and the Government’s sanction for applying Section 295A of the IPC is awaited. We direct the Government to immediately take a decision on the request for grant of sanction.”

During the hearing, 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.

Through its order, the court referred to 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.”

It further said “When it comes to the future of the victim child and his welfare, the state cannot treat this litigation as adversarial.”

“We see that he is traumatised and is in need of special kind of counselling. I will file an affidavit in this regard,” Advocate Farasat had said, emphasizing that whichever school the child will now be admitted to, he will be in need of continuous counselling.

In regards to this, the counsel appearing for the department of education submitted that a committee of three psychologists had been formed and it visited the child’s home to examine him. “We have been informed that the child is introverted since the very beginning and therefore the doctors have requested the child and his parents to come to the counselling centre,” the counsel provided.

The bench highlighted the issue of a traumatized child being required to come to the counselling centre. As per a report of the New Indian Express, the Bench then requested Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government’s home department, to take instructions on the availability of an expert agency like NIMHANS (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences) and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), which can go to the victim’s village and counsel him and other school children.

“Mr. Nataraj, can you take instructions, are there any institutions like NIMHANS, which play a very active role for children? Just find out, we will entrust the work to them. We will appoint NIMHANS or TISS and ask them to go there and give counselling,” the bench had said.

In regards to this, the bench may consider appointing an expert counsellor for the “severely traumatized” victim as well as the other students who were involved in this incident the order states “We are putting the state to notice that we may consider appointing an expert agency for the purposes of counselling not only the victim but the other children, who were involved in the alleged incident.”

As per a report of the Business Standard, the bench also directed the state to place on record the detailed guidelines laid down by the NCPCR about imposing physical punishment on students. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on November 6. As per the report, the court will “threadbare” examine the affidavits filed by the state.

In the earlier hearing, on September 25, the Supreme Court had remarked that there cannot be quality education if a student is sought to be penalised on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. The Court had also pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for conducting a “shoddy probe” into this case. Explicitly voicing their displeasure over the incident, the top court had directed the UP government to appoint a senior IPS officer within a week to probe the case.

While directing that the IPS officer shall file a report in the apex court, it had asked the state government to conduct counselling of the alleged victim and other students involved in the incident by professional counsellors.

The order can be accessed here:

Related:

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 SC directs UP government to immediately sanction prosecution of teacher accused of instructing students to beat Muslim child appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident unfolded at a private school situated in Dugawar village within Sambhal district, and it is alleged that the teacher, reportedly called Shaista, reportedly attempted to incite communal sentiments. This incident reminds us of the very recent incident in Muzaffarnagar’s Khubbapur village, where another private school teacher, Tripta Tyagi, faced similar allegations. In that instance, Tyagi was accused of orchestrating the repeated slapping of a Muslim boy by his Hindu classmates for failing to finish his homework. The incident had drawn widespread attention and condemnation after a video of the incident went viral on social media platforms. In the viral video, distressing scenes depicted students taking turns to slap the Muslim student, who stood in front of the classroom in tears. Tyagi in her defence had maintained that the video had been tampered with and she asserted that she had merely fulfilled her responsibilities as a teacher, explaining that her disability prevented her from intervening physically. The matter reached the Supreme Court’s attention, which, on September 25th, expressed concern over the Uttar Pradesh government’s handling of the case in Muzaffarnagar. The court also highlighted the need for education to remain free of discrimination and furthermore, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior IPS officer within a week to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Muzaffarnagar incident. The court also directed the state government to conduct counselling by trained professionals of the child as well as other students.

According to details in the FIR of the case in Sambhal obtained by The Quint, the father of the 10-year-old student has lodged a formal complaint. In the complaint, he alleges that his son, a fifth-grade student, was subjected to a slap by another student, of Muslim faith, at the direction of their teacher. According to The Quint, the father has stated that the school teacher had posed a question to his son and there onwards, when the son was unable to provide an answer, the teacher instructed one of the other students to slap his son in front of the entire class.  The child then returned home and narrated the incident to his parents. His father has reportedly stated in the complaint his son felt humiliated and upset, and that the incident had hurt their religious feelings.

With investigations being underway in both issues, this really poses larger questions as to what a free and fair education looks like in a democratic state.  If children do not feel safe and free of discrimination in the early levels of schooling, it would serve to further discourage students and their families from attaining education.

Related:

Hindutva mob beats up teacher inside school for teaching diversity

An open letter to the JNU VC: Your association with RSS defies humanism, anti-colonial struggle for Indian democracy!

Young students recuperating from deadly pellet gun injuries as Manipur once again witnessed brutal unrest

US commission highlights decline in religious freedom in India, recommends policy action 

The post UP: Another teacher asks student to slap classmate, complaint lodged appeared first on SabrangIndia.