The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on the Central government, as well as the Delhi government, regarding the educational needs of children cutting across the social strata, stating that if the same is not done, the whole purpose of the Right To Education (RTE) Act to merge students will stand defeated.

A two-judge Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna made the observation on a petition filed by an association of private unaided schools against the Delhi High Court directions to provide equipment of optimum configuration, which is sufficient to enable Economically Weaker Sections or Disadvantaged Groups students to get access to online learning.

The Bench observed that the future of children cannot be ignored, a solution has to be devised by both the state and the Centre.

The Apex Court said during the Covid-19 pandemic, the schools increasingly turned to online education in order to avoid exposure of young children. The digital device produced stark consequences, observed the Court, while noting down the plight of children belonging to the EWS/DG category who have to suffer the consequences because of lack of access to internet and computer. 

It said the needs of children from underprivileged section to receive online education cannot be denied.

“The Government of NCT should come up with a plan that adheres to the purpose of the Right to Education Act. The Government of India should aid the state government. For providing funds for the same. We expect both the Centre and the state to take up the matter in close quarters immediately, so as to find a lasting solution. 

What Article 21-A says? 

The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserted Article 21-A in the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to 14 years as a Fundamental Right in such a manner as the state may, by law, determine.

Order not only for unaided schools, but govt and aided ones also: Supreme Court

The bench further directed its registry to list the matter along with pending SLPs on similar issue. “It may seem the administrative direction of CJI that the present SLP is listed before an appropriate Bench, so that a reasonable and practical solution is provided for those between the age of 6 to 14 years. This will not only cover the unaided schools, but government as well as aided schools,” the bench ordered. 

During the hearing, Advocate Khagesh Jha, appearing for the Respondent/Justice for All, apprised the bench that something urgent needs to be done, these children who can’t have access to devices, how will they study.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while agreeing with him, told Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Association of Unaided Schools, “Mr Jha has a point.”

“In Karnataka, we ordered the state to form a CSR fund for this. This is how we can deal with such matters,” pointed out Justice Nagarathna.

Justice Chandrachud noted, “The EWS children get admission even in regular schools, their children are pursuing education at schools since the parents work there. But they can’t afford a laptop, they need it, they use their phone.” 

Mr Divan said, “My lord, this needs to be grappled with, but how this is to be funded, because this is a worldwide issue. Even the compensation is not given fully by the government and that too doesn’t come on time.  Education is very important and vital. Many families set up a separate fund for educational needs of their wards. 

Justice Chandrachud observed, “You are extremely right. We see that point.”

Justice Nagarathna said, “In Karnataka, we directed the state that this is a highly concerning matter, we have to take this quite seriously and the state came up with a plan.” 

At this juncture, Justice Chandrachud asked, “We can’t ask private schools to handle the burden, what is the Delhi Government doing in this case?”

Advocate Santosh Tripathi also appearing for the RespondentNo 2/ Govt of NCT of Delhi, submitted that Government is not running online education because of lack of structure and availability of technology. Online education required certain structure. The central and state takes part in it, solely the state doesn’t have the funds.

Shyam Divan said- We are of the view that the schools will get open after Diwali Break. 

Justice DY Chandrachud- Mr. Divan, that is for the senior students. But then the young students it will take time, I saw somewhere there is going to be vaccination for +2, but this will also take time. 

“On one hand, we are merging EWS with mainstream students but at the same time, there is disparity. A child of driver, where do they get a tablet or laptop, learning is taking place online. How will they do it?,” Justice Chandrachud asked. 

Justice Nagarathna said, “You can imagine the situation in tribal areas, remote/ rural areas. There is a great dropout from school.” 

Divan replied, “Your lordship may consider to take up the main matter.”

The Supreme Court noted in its order that the Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 18.9.2020 has dealt with a matter of crucial importance for the future of young children particularly belonging to EWS and disadvantaged group (DG) pursuing the education at govt. And private school. 

Further it noted that the issue before Delhi High Court inter alia pertained to the need to assure 25 percent of EWS and DG students should have necessary gadgets to ensure that during pandemic, when schools across the country were forced to adopt Virtual Classes.

The High Court directed that once a school has adopted a real time education as a mode, both government and private schools must under Section 12(1)(c) 2009 Act should supply the gadgets and equipment of optimum consideration in a package. The cost of such gadgets and equipment be provided to EWS and Subject to right of Claim from state. The judgment of Delhi High was first challenged in SLP by the Government of Delhi in 14901/2020. The Notice was issued on 10.2.2020 by bench of CJI and the Operation of order of High Court Order was stayed. The present SLP is by action committee of unaided recognised Pvt. School. Since two SLP are pending, notice is issued and tagged. 

Further, the Court noted that the issue raised in these petitions needs early resolution. Even so, there will be gradual opening of school in view of decreasing curve of Covid-19. The need to provide a computer-based and electronic equipment together with access to online facility to children of EWS/ DG children is of utmost importance. 

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Delhi Government and others on a plea by a drivers’ union regarding ambiguity in the colour of the uniform mandated for autorickshaw and taxi drivers in the capital.  

The Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, was informed by the counsel for petitioner that there is complete disharmony between the rules prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and the one laid down under Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules.

The matter is slated for August 20, 2021. The petition has been filed through Advocate Mohini Chaubey by a registered trade union of drivers, Chaalak Shakti, Jasveer Singh, and Hari Om, an autorickshaw and city taxi driver, respectively.

The plea contends that autorickshaws and taxi drivers are issued permits by the Government either under S.74(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as contract carriages or under S.88 of the said Act as tourist vehicles. One common condition attached to permits for all contract carriages is that the uniform shall be “grey”. In stark contrast to the aforesaid permit condition in respect of the uniform colour, Rule 7 of the DMVR makes it mandatory for the driver of a public service vehicle to wear a “khaki” uniform.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in “B.N Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Mysore & Ors.”, the plea states that the respondents, while strictly enforcing the condition of grey uniform as stipulated in the permit conditions, deliberately choose to not abide by Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, that prescribes khaki colour; and the drivers found that without grey uniform they are issued challans by the Delhi Police.

In addition, the plea states that there is also ambiguity on the shade number as both khaki and grey come in hundreds of shades. “It is a settled law that if a penal provision is there for violating a law, the law itself must be unambiguous so that it cannot be subjectively interpreted,” the plea underlined.

The rules regarding uniform for tourist permit vehicles are laid down vide notification S.O. 415(E) dated 8-6-1989 prescribing a ‘white’ uniform for summer and a blue or grey uniform for winter. 

Also Read: Delhi High Court defers hearing in WhatsApp new privacy policy case to August 27

The plea states: “The drivers of transport vehicles such as autorickshaws and taxis are being prosecuted and heavily challenged to the extent of Rs 20,000 for not wearing a uniform, though there is no clarity on the colour (s) and specifications, and there is a stark contradiction in and ambiguity between the rules and permit conditions.”

In light of the above, the plea prays for striking down of Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993; as also the notification dated 8-6-1989 and any permit conditions issued by the Government in relation of the uniform required to be worn by the drivers of transport vehicles.

The plea thus reads: “The petitioners submit that in order to create a healthy and hygienic environment, give freedom to drivers from the burden of extra expense on uniforms and permit them to express themselves freely, there ought to be broad guidelines in the form of a Dress Code as to what is expected of drivers and what clothes are undesirable. Such dress codes formulated by local councils/transport authorities exist in many well-known metropolitans across the globe.”

The Police Complaint Authority, Government of NCT of Delhi has published its Annual report for the year 2019-2020 and submitted it to Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal.

According to its report for 2019-2020, the Police Control Authority has received and disposed off several complaints including rape cases, cases of harassment, merciless beating by the police officials, cases regarding inaction and misuse of power of the police officials, cases regarding custodial death and torture at the police station, etc.

According to the annual report the Police Complaint Authority has received 1535 complaints during the year 2019-2020, of which 1327 were disposed off, while 208 are pending with a remarkable disposal rate of more than 86.44%.

The Authority, with Former Delhi High Court Justice PS Teji as its Chairman, inquire into allegations of “serious misconduct” against police personnel, either Suo Motu or on a complaint received from a victim, the National Human Rights Commission or Lieutenant- Governor or Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi.

Justice P. S. Teji has been a judge par excellence, he is known for his legal acumen, specially in Criminal Jurisprudence. During his tenure at the Delhi High Court he had an impressive rate of Disposal of cases and there are about 300 reported judgements to his credit.

Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal wrote in his message, that the annual report of the PCA presents an overview of what has been achieved during the year. He also lauded the Chairman and the members of the PCA for working sincerely and being devoted for redressal of grievances of the general public pertaining to the Delhi Police. 

The Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, has said that the efforts made by PSA has brought good name and reached to the prestigious position by disposing considerable number of complaints of the general public.

The Police Complain Authority, Delhi, has disposed off various major cases before it during the period (2019-2020)

1- Ms. Pooja Complaint noPCA/2018-19/57 (Regarding inaction and misuse of power of the police officials.)

2- Late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Complaint no. Complt./PCA/01/2019 (Regarding custodial death of Mukesh Kumar)

3- Mohd. Ibrahim Complaint no. Complt./PCA/02/2019 (Regarding beating by SHO)

4- Ms. Megha Gupta Complaint No. Complt./PCA/03/2019 (regarding harassment, merciless beating by the police officials)

5- Sh. Pramod Kumar Complaint no. Complt./PCA/04/2019 (regarding torture at the police Station)

6- Sh. Jai Kaushik Complaint no. Complt./PCA/06/2019 (regarding misuse of power by police officials)

The Supreme Court while deciding a writ petition (Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India) in 2006 had observed that the preparation of a model Police Act by the Central Government and enactment of a New Police Act by the State Governments providing therein for the composition of State Security Commission are things that it hopes for. It had suggested that all State Governments should enact a new Police Act wholly insulating the police from any pressure whatsoever thereby placing in position an important measure for securing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution for the Rule of Law, treating everyone equal and being partisan to none, which will also help in securing an efficient and better criminal delivery system.

Read Also: SC quashes NLSIU’s planned NLAT exams, says CLAT will remain the only selection exam

The Apex Court under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution had issued directions to the Central Government, State Governments and the Union Territories for constitution of Police Complaints Authority till framing of appropriate legislation. Thereafter on 29th January 2018, in compliance with the directions passed by the Supreme Court and directions issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, the Lieutenant Governor had constituted the Police Complaints Authority of National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Read the Annual Report here;