Supreme Court Castigates UP Govt For 'Shocking' Approach In Muzaffarnagar School Slapping Case; Summons Education Secretary

In a scathing order, the Supreme Court on Friday (10th Nov) castigated the State of Uttar Pradesh and its Education Department for non-compliance with the orders passed  concerning the counselling and admission for the student victim in the infamous Muzaffarnagar school slapping case.

The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the lack of proper counselling provided to the child and other students. To rectify this failure, the Court appointed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to help with the counselling. The Court also directed the Principal Secretary of the Education Department to appear virtually for the next hearing scheduled on December 11, 2023.

The Court observed “We find that the State of UP and in particular the Education Dept has not complied with various orders passed by the court from time to time starting from 25th September. No proper counseling has been conducted for victim child and other children involved. To say the least, the approach of the state, as can be seen affidavit, is shocking".

It further ordered “We, therefore, appoint TISS to suggest the mode and manner of extending counselling to the students. TISS will also suggest the names of expert child counselors who can extend counselling under the supervision of TISS.

The matter would be listed on 11th December, 2023 and the court ordered “We direct Principal Secretary of Education Dept to be present virtually. To avoid any strong action by the court, we hope and trust that the Secretary will personally look into the matter and ensure that the order passed by this are complied in letter and spirit and affidavits are placed at least 3 days in advance before next date.”

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a petition filed by social activist Tushar Gandhi seeking proper investigation in the case against the teacher, who instigated the students in the class to slap the victim-a Muslim boy- by taking turns. A video of the incident showing the primary school teacher named Tripta Tyagi allegedly making communal remarks targeting the religion of the victim had gone viral in social media in the month of August.

At the outset, Justice Oka expressed dissatisfaction over the lack of compliance of orders regarding counseling and admission in this case.  “Where is compliance regarding counseling, admission? There are several aspects. There’s no compliance by the state? Where’s the affidavit?

Advocate Sanjay Jain, for the State, responded that a team with three doctors, one psychiatrist, a nurse, and a community person has been formed for counselling.

Justice Oka questioned the adequacy and competency of professionals engaged in counseling given the seriousness of the incident.  

“Who are those professionals? In such a serious incident, can a nurse, or secretary do counseling? Whether you appointed a child psychologist?" Justice Oka asked.

The counsel responded, “We've appointed a psychiatrist.”

Justice Oka replied, “There’s a difference- we expect the state to understand the difference between a psychiatrist and a child psychologist.”

Next, the bench probed about the admission of the student. On the last hearing date (November 6), the Court had asked the State to facilitate the admission of the student to a private school, as desired by his parents.

Justice Oka asked “Where's the response to the affidavit filed by father? Not a single compliance by the state. He’s not been admitted to a single school."

The Counsel tried to assure that “necessary directions were given and only the father has to go for formalities”

“Show us that the school has agreed to admit students. First, produce a letter by school. There’s no compliance by state, who’s the Secretaryy? We’ll procure his presence. Show us a single statement- We’ve gone through the affidavit meticulously", Justice Oka stated.

The Court inquired about the responsibility for expenses, which the counsel specified would fall under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) scheme

Expressing skepticism about the state's willingness to act without a direct order, he said “Unless we pass an order, they won't do anything. Whether you want to comply, or you want to do face-saving?”

The Counsel expressed his willingness to comply with the court order.

The bench voiced its concern that the affected student was left in distress for so long. J. Oka added “The Order passed on 25th September, now we're on 10th November. The students are treated like this in your state and the state remains silent".

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shadan Farasat.

Earlier, the Court had expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the UP Police dealt with the case, pointing out that the FIR was registered belatedly and that too by invoking less serious offences, despite the father of the boy specifically stating in the complaint that the teacher had made communal remarks.

Expressing that there is "prima facie failure on the part of the State" to comply with the mandate of the Right to Education Act, which prohibits physical and mental harassment of students and their discrimination on the basis of religion and caste, the Court had directed the investigation of the case to be done by a senior IPS-ranked officer.

Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023

For petitioner: AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, Adv. Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Ms. Natasha Maheshwari

For respondent: ASG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, AAG Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandey.