'Is Education Reserved For Privileged?' : Karnataka High Court Expresses Concern Over Lack Of Toilets, Drinking Water In Govt Schools

The Karnataka High Court on Monday expressed its concern that the state government's negligence in providing basic amenities like drinking water and toilets in government schools was inadvertently fostering the growth of private educational institutions.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit questioned the government's stance in a suo-motu PIL based on media reports highlighting a large number of children dropping out of school and a lack of basic facilities in government schools.

“By allowing this situtaion to go on, we are encouraging private school owners. If a person who does not earn enough to have two meals a day has to shell out from the pocket, compromise on the meals to put his children to the schools, is it not that we are creating a situation of haves and have nots?Unfortunately, the situation right now is that haves get basic facilities and have nots have nothing at all. This is unfortunate.”

The court took note of a report submitted by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate K N Phanindhra, which revealed that 464 government schools lacked toilet facilities, and 87 government schools lacked drinking water facilities. It was also pointed out that Rs 80 crore had been allocated to the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Development Department for, among other things, constructing new toilets in schools lacking them.

Of the 87 schools reported to lack drinking water facilities, 55 were surveyed, and it was discovered that they did, in fact, have adequate drinking water facilities. However, in the remaining 32 schools, adequate drinking water facilities were still lacking.

The court concurred with the arguments put forth by the amicus and the petitioner's counsel, stating that due to the lack of facilities, government schools were closing down. Simultaneously, parents, even if financially constrained, had no alternative but to enrol their children in private schools, defeating the goal of making primary education a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution.

The bench highlighted that mostly underprivileged people send their children to government schools and by denying them basic facilities, the State was indirectly promoting private school owners.

“Which children go to government school no research is required, it is only underprivileged people who put their children in government schools. Given an option, they don’t hover near the schools at all. So it is directly affecting those underprivileged who were the focal point of Dr Amebadkar. This is not the way, nobody will agree to put their children in government schools, but for the difficulty and social disability such as resources are a factor. It is affecting the underprivileged. For others, it's no problem at all.”

The court continued and asked if education was reserved only for the privileged.

“Is it that you (State) want to see young girls/boys, only because they are belonging to weaker sections of the society, are not to take education in this state? Is it only something for the privileged ones? If I have money I can put my children to the best of schools, having every facility and if i dont have money or some resources, I cannot educate my children? It is as simple as that.”

It added that people who struggle to afford two meals a day will now have to compromise on meals to put their children through school, thus creating a divide between the haves and have-nots.

“This is one of the ways to close down government schools and say allow the flourishing of private schools. Nothing against the private schools if they are permitted under law they can open the school but that doesn’t mean that there is no opportunity for other sections of the society to have education and we are doing that.”

The court also underscored the importance of education.

“Equality comes only by education. That is the reason we always see Dr Ambedkar holding a book. Have you ever seen a bust or photograph of Ambedkar Ji without a book? Because education is so important. You provide free bus services and we are not against that, but education is essential.”

On the government's request for an eight-week extension to examine the report, personally engage with education department officials, and inform the secretary of the school education department, the court granted the extension.

However, it firmly emphasised that granting time for report submission should not be considered an excuse for not taking steps to provide basic facilities like drinking water or toilets to schools.

Additionally, the State government was instructed to complete the survey within these two months, with no further extensions granted for the survey. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was also directed to submit a survey report concerning schools under its jurisdiction.

Further, it directed the State government to complete the survey exercise within these two months and said no further adjournment would be granted to conducting the survey. BBMP is also directed to submit its survey report regarding schools being run/monitored by BBMP.

Case Title: REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case No: WP 15768/2013