Delhi High Court: A PIL was filed highlighting the fact that 2,69,488 students studying in the schools run by Directorate of Education, GNCTD and 3,83,203 students studying in the school run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) are being deprived of the statutory benefits like uniform, writing material, text book, stationery items, school bags, scholarship, etc. as available to them under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’) read with Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (‘RTE Rules’). A division bench of Manmohan ACJ., and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., directed incur the expenditure required for fulfilling the said obligations forthwith without being constrained by the expenditure limit of Rs. 5 crores subject to statutory audit.
The Court stated “Non-availability of Chief Minister or non-formation of a Standing Committee or disputes pertaining to appointment of an aldermen by the Hon’ble LG or non-delivery of judgment by a competent Court or non-compliance of certain provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act cannot come in the way of the school-going children receiving their free text-books, writing material and uniform forthwith.”
The case revolves around the provision of free textbooks, writing materials, and uniforms to students enrolled in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) schools. It emerged against the backdrop of a delay in the implementation of Resolution No. 182 and the failure to procure essential items for students. The case was filed due to the apparent negligence and delay on the part of the authorities responsible for providing essential educational materials to students. Despite the existence of legal mandates under the Right to Education Act and Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, the procurement process was stalled, causing undue hardship to the students.
The petitioner argued that the delay in procurement constituted a violation of the fundamental rights of the students, as guaranteed by Article 21-A of the Constitution and various provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petitioner highlighted the urgency of the matter and criticized the bureaucratic hurdles hindering the procurement process. The respondents, represented by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Mayor of MCD, submitted that the procurement process required approval from the House and emphasized the need for democratic control over expenditures exceeding Rs. 5e crores. They cited administrative constraints and procedural requirements as reasons for the delay.
The Court expressed its displeasure at the unreasonable stance taken by the GNCTD and the Mayor, citing their failure to appreciate the urgency of the matter. It criticized the bureaucratic impasse within the MCD and highlighted the students’ entitlement to free educational materials as a constitutional and statutory right. The Court analyzed the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education to children and ensure their access to essential educational materials. It dismissed the arguments of the respondents regarding procedural requirements and bureaucratic constraints, asserting the paramount importance of fulfilling the students’ rights without delay.
The Court remarked that “To say that no important decision can be taken during a model code of conduct is a misnomer. Undoubtedly, no new policy decision can be taken but holders of Constitutional posts have to everyday take important as well as urgent decisions. For instance, issuance of free text books, writing material and uniform as well as replacement of broken chairs and tables in accordance with the existing policies in the MCD schools is an urgent and immediate decision which brooks no delay and which is not prohibited during the model code of conduct.”
The Court further remarked “The decision of the Chief Minister, despite having been arrested, and his petition being dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court to continue to hold the position is his personal decision. However, it does not mean that if the Chief Minister is not available, the Fundamental Rights of young children would be trampled upon and they would go through the first term (1st April to 10th May) without free text books, writing material and uniform.”
Thus, the Court held that the non-availability of the Chief Minister or bureaucratic disputes could not justify the denial of essential educational materials to students and directed the Commissioner of MCD to immediately procure the required items, bypassing the expenditure limit of Rs. 5(Five) crores, and subject the expenditure to statutory audit. The court scheduled a follow-up hearing to monitor compliance with its directive.
[Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. GNCTD, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2983, decided on 29-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Hrishika Jain, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel for MCD
Buy Constitution of India HERE
