In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has determined that it is the responsibility of the State government to cover all expenses, such as books, study materials, and more, for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are enrolled in schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
The Court made it clear that the State has a duty to fully cover all costs and ensure that EWS students are not burdened with any financial obligations to access their right to compulsory education under the Act. The Court highlighted the indisputable nature of this obligation, based on the evidence presented in the case. It expressed the firm opinion that the State is obliged, as per the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Constitution, to provide free and compulsory education to children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups, specifically mentioned in Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act. Therefore, the State must bear the entire financial responsibility on behalf of the child enrolled under the reserved quota, leaving no room for the child to pay any amount towards their education.
This ruling not only underscores the paramount importance of providing equitable educational opportunities for all children but also clarifies the legal framework outlined in Section 12(2) of the RTE Act. It serves as a significant step towards ensuring that children from economically weaker sections are not denied access to quality education due to financial constraints.
A recent petition presented before the Court shed light on the plight of a minor, M Suveathan, who sought intervention from the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to address their previous request. The petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act, was enrolled in a private unaided matriculation school situated in the Vellore district.
Regrettably, the petitioner’s parents had already paid an amount of approximately ₹11,700 as fees for the upcoming two academic years. To their astonishment, the school authorities demanded an additional sum of ₹11,000, citing it as necessary for purchasing uniforms, study materials (including textbooks), stationery, and other related items.
Owing to the petitioner’s inability to meet this unexpected financial burden, they were reluctantly allowed to attend classes but were deprived of the opportunity to truly study and learn. The petitioner’s legal representative highlighted this distressing situation, emphasizing the dire inability to afford even basic books and notebooks.
This case brings to light the glaring issue of financial barriers hindering students’ access to education, ultimately impeding their ability to participate fully in their academic pursuits.
During the proceedings, the State government contended that its obligation extended solely to the payment or reimbursement of tuition fees as determined by the Fee Determination Committee. According to Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, any additional fees, such as those related to uniforms, notebooks, and study materials, were to be borne by students admitted under the 25 percent quota. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu government argued that the petitioner must bear the cost of the demanded fees for uniforms, notebooks, and study materials, as they were not determined by the Fee Determination Committee, and thus the State could not be directed to cover them.
Nevertheless, the High Court dismissed the State’s arguments, deeming them incorrect and untenable. The Court emphasized that books, uniforms, notebooks, and other such materials were essential components and integral to the process of education. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act, the State was obliged to reimburse the entire amount payable for all economically weaker section (EWS) students, including the petitioner, enrolled in schools across the State, encompassing expenses related to uniforms, textbooks, and study materials.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate R Sankarasubbu in the case.
Government Advocate S Balamurugan appeared on behalf of the State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.
The respondent State government and the District authorities were represented by Additional Advocate General V Arun and Advocate R Kumaravel.
Advocate R Natarajan appeared as legal counsel for the respondent School.
Written by – Sohini Chakraborty intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments