Delhi HC Issues Notice On Plea Against Exclusion Of Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas & Institutions Imparting Religious Instruction From Right To Education Act

The Delhi High Court today issued notice on plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenging the exclusion of Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas & educational institutions imparting religious instruction from the scope of Right to Education Act, 2009.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notices to Union Ministry of Education, Ministry of Law & Justice and Ministry of Home Affairs, and posted the matter for hearing on March 30.

The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the 'Right to Education' protected under Article 21A of the Constitution has to be read in conformity with Article 14. The states are obligated to impart quality education through a common curriculum. Further, there cannot be any discrimination in imparting the same on basis of social and cultural background.

Thus, the petitioner has challenged the vires of S. 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act 2009 as arbitrary irrational and contrary to Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition on discrimination), 16 (Equal opportunity to all citizens), 21 (Right to life with dignity), 21A (Right to education) and Preamble.

Section 1(4) states that provisions of the RTE Act shall be subject to the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. Section 1(5) states that the RTE Act shall not be applicable to Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious instruction.

The Petitioner submitted that compulsory education which mandate every child to attend school, but lacks in providing an effective common curriculum is "worse than providing no education at all".

"Hallmark of compulsory education system is syllabus & curriculum which must be equally & uniformly applied across the board, so as to ensure conditions, in which each children are placed on an equal playing field, competent to take on the challenges of real world and empowered to avail the opportunities which life offers in its myriad circumstances, equally."

Moreover, it is contended that by the operation of words 'free' and 'compulsory', and the inclusion of Sections 7(6) and 29 of the RTE Act, it is manifest that Centre is not only empowered but also obligated to formulate effective common syllabus and common curriculum in consonance and in furtherance of the constitutional goals.

Section 7(6) states that Central Government shall develop a framework of "national curriculum". Section 29 provides that academic authority, while laying down the curriculum, shall take into consideration the values enshrined in the Constitution, among other things.

"Right to education guaranteed under Article 21A. must be read in consonance with Article 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 46 and there must be no discrimination in quality of education. Right of child should not be restricted to only free and compulsory education but must be extended to equal quality education without discrimination on social economic religious cultural background thus common syllabus & curriculum is essential for all the children...common and compulsory education up to 14 years would achieve code of common culture, removal of disparity and depletion of discriminatory values in human relations. It would also enhance virtues and improve quality of life, elevate the thoughts, which advance constitutional philosophy of equal society," the plea reads.

Thus, it is prayed to declare that Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution in furtherance of the Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and to achieve the golden goals, enshrined in Articles 38 (secure social order for the promotion of welfare of the people), 39 (children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner), 46 (Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections) and Preamble of the Constitution of India.

Further, to declare that Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the Right to Education Act 2009 are arbitrary irrational and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A of the Constitution. Hence, void and inoperative.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India