Right to Education: Pramati judgment and Sobha George Judgment

In June 2016, Kerala High Court delivered a remarkable verdict in the Sobha George case that made Section 16 of the RTE Act to be applicable to minority educational institutions as well. Section 16 of the RTE Act {No Detention Policy} mandates schools not to detain students till they complete elementary education. The verdict is significant as it had set aside the verdict of Supreme Court in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case exempting minority schools from the purview of the RTE Act.

Key Facts

• The Right to Education Act (RTE), 2009 makes provisions for free and compulsory education for children between 6 and 14 under Article 21-A of the Indian Constitution. This article was inserted into Part-III (Fundamental Rights) in the constitution via the 86th Constitutional amendment of the constitution.
• In 2010, the No detention policy was implemented. Under this policy, the students up to class VIII are automatically promoted to the next class without being held back even if they do not get a passing grade. The policy was implemented as part of the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) under the RTE Act in 2010 to ensure all-round development of students.
• The concept of CCE imported from the West emphasizes on evaluating a child through the year, and not just based on performance in one or two term exams.
• The major objective behind no detention policy was to check drop outs. Several surveys conducted by the government and various NGOs had revealed that the detention system led to increased dropouts among students, especially from economically and socially weaker sections, who cannot afford costly private education.
• Thus, the no-detention policy was brought in to provide elementary school children an environment free from fear, anxiety and stress and allow them to learn and grown on their own pace. The main idea was to reduce the undue stress of competition among students, parents and the educational institutions.

Questions and Answers

• What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in Pramati Education and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)?
• What was the Kerala High Court’s view on Sobha George v. State of Kerala case?
• What are the flaws in the Pramati Judgment of the Supreme Court?
• What is the significance of the Sobha George judgment?
• What is the way forward?

What was the Supreme Court’s verdict in Pramati Education and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)?

The Supreme Court had delivered a verdict ruling RTE is inapplicable for aided or unaided minority schools. Hence, it had exempted the minority schools from implementing the No Detention policy.

What was the Kerala High Court’s view on Sobha George v. State of Kerala case?

The Kerala High Court based its ruling on Article 21, which guarantees right to life and liberty. So, it has ruled that no detention policy is in the interest of children and can be independently considered as a fundamental right.

What are the flaws in the Pramati Judgment of the Supreme Court?

• The Supreme Court failed to see the provisions of the RTE Act on other areas like infrastructural norms, pupil-teacher ratio, prohibition on screening tests and capitation fee and ban on corporal punishment and so on. No doubt, these provisions will be beneficial to the students studying in the minority schools. It has prohibited the extension of RTE Act to minority schools by only keeping the provision of 25% quota in mind.
• Supreme Court did not take into account the fact that the government-aided minority schools stand on a different footing from the unaided schools. Needless to say, the former are more amenable to regulations than the latter.

What is the significance of the Sobha George judgment?

• It has made certain provisions of the RTE Act applicable to the minority schools.
• It has highlighted that certain provisions of the RTE Act has universal appeal even if the Act itself lacks it.
• It has also opened up the possibilities of applying various provisions of the RTE Act on aided or unaided minority schools under Article 21.
• The judgment has also forced a rethink on the role of judicial precedents. Bounded by the Pramati Judgment, Karnataka High Court had refused to apply no detention policy to minority schools in Karnataka.

What is the way forward?

Due to different rulings by different courts, the overall position of law as of now is unclear. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to re-examine the positives and negatives concerning the educational rights of minorities and lay down clear binding law for all the subordinate courts to follow. Delivery of an erroneous opinion by the highest Court of a country is unfortunate and will cripple the reputation the highest court has earned so far. As of now, children from Kerala will benefit from the Sobha George judgment.