DC Debate: Allahabad High Court’s order to send state staff kids to public schools

High Court ruling will help schools
The Allahabad High Court, in its landmark judgement, has said that all government servants, elected representatives, members of the judiciary and any person who gets any benefit or salary from the state exchequer or public fund should send their children to primary schools run by the State Education Board. It also ruled that penal provisions be laid down for those who violate the order.

An amount equal to the school fees should be deposited by the officials and elected representatives to the state exchequer for every child going to private school. The judgment also directed the government to make appropriate provisions to ensure the parents of the children are compelled to receive primary education in schools run by the Board.

The judgment has to be hailed by everyone. We have to raise our voices to implement it in its true spirit.

Yes, there will be bitter opposition to it from different sections, particularly from the so called elite. In a rare society, which is exceptional to all countries from the US to China and Japan to Sri Lanka, where around 42 per cent of the enrolled children are studying in private schools, the implementation of such a radical judgment will have its own implications and oppositions.

All these have to be taken into account but we should be firm on the implementation of the decision. From different corners, different objections may be raised. One and foremost among them might be that the child has every right to choose a school and the state cannot compel one to opt for a particular school.

In many countries, including in the US, all the children have to be admitted only to a schools only. If the parents want to opt for another school, they have to shift their residence. The norm is not to deny the child the right to chose a school but it actually ensures that every locality will have a good school.

Similarly, once the elite send their children to public schools, these schools will be automatically improved and a child’s right to study in a good public school is ensured.

Another query that can be raised is why only public servants be forced to admit their children to government schools. Nowadays, only the children of the marginalised are studying in the public schools. Naturally, they have no voice and cannot demand the betterment of the schools. It can be done only by the elite. Once the children of this section join public schools, the scene will change dramatically.

It can be seen in Kerala Public schools in which around 80 per cent of the teachers’ and public employees’ children are studying. The public servants, particularly the teachers, should come forward to shoulder this responsibility not only for the interest of the marginalised sections but also for their own children and their schools.

Education has to minimise the disparities between different sections and it has an instrumental and intrinsic value of equalisation. It is a world-wide experience and unfortunately India is an exception.

The timely judgment can be a powerful instrument in the hands of the forces who advocate public education. Let us start from ourselves to translate the judgment into action. (V. Balasubrahmanyam, Independent MLC from teachers’ constituency)

It won’t solve larger issues

The order of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Kumar Patak v. State of UP directing children of government employees, peoples representatives, Judges and all persons who receive any perk, benefit or salary from the state government exchequer to send their children to government schools is extraordinary.

The High Court was confronted with a situation, where despite huge budgets being sanctioned for primary education, the government schools were in shabby and dilapidated condition with the absence of teachers and complete absence of even basic amenities. The High Court found that government schools were the victim of “highest level of misappropriation, mal-administration and widespread corruption” and there was “no real involvement of administration with these schools”.

Confronted with this extraordinary situation, the court directed that the children of government officials must be sent to government schools. It reasoned that this would create sufficient incentive for government officials to improve the standards in government schools.

The court held that it is the constitutional obligation of the state under Article 21-A to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the 6 to 14 years must be made a reality. The court’s concern is indeed justified, but there are certain serious difficulties which arise on account of the court’s order.

First, the court’s order violates the right and the freedom of a child to study in the school of their choice. In a constitutional democracy like India, a child cannot be compelled to study in any particular school. The right to free speech and expression carries with it the freedom of the mode of receiving education. The Court cannot direct a child, even if it is a child of a government servant, to receive education in a particular institution. It violates the personal liberty of the child.

Second, it may be unfair to penalise all government servants for failure of the educational system. The lower-level employees or people who do not have any direct role in the education system (like judges) may not be responsible for the poor state of government schools.

The failure of government schools may not be an issue of poor administration, but rather the capacity of the state to deliver quality education through government schools.

Recognising this limitation of the state, the Right to Education Act was enacted wherein every student would have access to education in private schools at the expense of the state. Thus, the solution given by the court may not really address the larger problem with government schools.

Third, the solution given by the court also violates the principle of separation of powers. The power to provide solutions to problems falls within the realm of legislature and the executive. While it is the duty of the court to declare a law and enforce the law, it is not part of the HC’s duty to prescribe norms and penalties to solve societal problems, however helpful and compelling the solutions might be.

However, the court’s order is a serious wakeup call for the policy makers to take serious steps to better government schools. (K. Vivek Reddy, Advocate, Hyderabad High Court)