Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Law To Ban Screening For Nursery School Admissions In Delhi

The Supreme Court, on October 13, dismissed the appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s order wherein the Court refused to pass any appropriate writ pertaining to expedite the finalization of  (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which prescribes for prohibition of screening procedure in the matter of admission of children at pre-primary level (nursery/pre-primary) in schools.

The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, stated:

“Can there be a mandamus to introduce a law? That is the problem and that is the view High Court has taken. How can we say that High Court is in error…Supreme Court can’t have a panacea for everything.”

The petitioner in the present case was Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group, an organisation of lawyers and social activists.

It had been argued, in the petition, that the Bill banning screening procedure in nursery admissions in schools, was prepared in the year 2015 and for the last seven years without any justification and against public interest, the Bill is hanging between Central Government and Delhi Government and is not being passed yet.

Further, it was stated that the delay in proceeding further acts contrary to the interest of children in the matter of admission to nursery/pre-primary in private schools and has resulted in arbitrary procedure being adopted by different schools in matters of admission of children at pre-primary level.

The Petitioner sought to rely on the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to contend that in order to implement the provisions of the RTE Act, it was felt necessary to do away with the screening procedure for admission of children to nursery/pre-primary classes.

However, the Delhi High Court, in its impugned judgment observed that after the Bill had a passage through the House of Legislature of a State, it is presented to the Governor, and it is for the Governor to declare at that stage whether he gives assent or he withholds the assent or refers the Bill to the President for assent.

“Courts cannot control or interfere in this procedure and cannot direct the Governor or pass a writ to the Governor to grant assent or desist from granting assent….. It is not proper for a High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct a Governor who is a constitutional authority to set a timeframe in matters which come purely within the domain of the Governor. In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Bill has been passed by the House, it is always open to the Governor to agree or to send the Bill back to the House and this Court ought not to pass a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to act by passing a writ.,” the High Court held.

Court Room Exchange

To begin with, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made submissions before the Bench regarding the objective and importance of the bill.

However, Justice Kaul stated: Can there be a mandamus to introduce a law? That is the problem and That is the view High Court has taken. How can we say that High Court is in error…Supreme Court can't have a panacea for everything.,” the Bench asserted.

At this, the Counsel explained: We are only praying that what is the status of the bill.

Justice Kaul replied: “There were many acts, for example the Rent control Act…for ten years it was not implemented….This is not an administrative action; this is a legislative side.”

Justice Kaul inquired: When was this bill introduced?

Counsel: 2015, it has been eight years.

Justice Kaul: 8 years, obviously, they don’t want this law to come into force. What is the doubt in it?

The Counsel tried persuading the Bench, however, the Bench was not convinced and dismissed the plea.

Case Title: SOCIAL JURIST Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(C) No. 022296 - / 2023