Kerala High Court Seeks Responses Of Centre and State On Funds For Free Education

While hearing the matter, Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P.Chaly held as follows:

"We direct the State/Central Government as the case may be, to file their respective statements on the averments and on the aspect of providing necessary fund so as to enable free and compulsory education to the children below the age of 14 years mandated under Article 21A of Part II of the Constitution of India."

Advocate Muhammed Shafi M and Anas Muhammed Shamnad , on behalf of the petitioner relied on the report of Kerala Sasthra Sahitya Parishath regarding the availability of instruments and study objections in the State and Section 8 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act to establish the government's duty to provide free and compulsory education to every child.

Senior Government Pleader Advocate Surin George Ipe appeared for the respondent and submitted that a similar matter was already raised before a Division Bench, and directions had already been issued to the respondents. On this ground, it was argued that the no more directions had to be issued in this matter.

Advocate Jagadeesh Laxman represented the Centre and submitted that Kerala Sasthra Sahitya Parishath had already filed a report. The petitioner objected to this stating that the said organization is an NGO recognized by the State government.

The Court examined the report as well as the said provision and concurred with the petitioner. It was observed that non-availability of instruments and shortage of internet was impeding the provision of mandatory education under the statute.

Accordingly, it was directed that the concerned authorities to file their statements within ten days.

This development transpired after a PIL was filed by a social worker alleging grave violation of the fundamental right to free education guaranteed u/Art 21A by the State by not providing free infrastructure facilities to the students pursuing elementary education for attending online classes amidst the pandemic.

The petitioner asserted that it is the duty and responsibility of the Central and State Governments and concerned Local Authorities to provide free and compulsory elementary education to the children in the country. The inability of the aforementioned authorities to provide requisite infrastructure facilities for students to attend online classes was illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 21 and 21A.

Title: Abdullatheef M. v. Union of India & Ors