Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | 'Uttar Pradesh Govt Failed To Act In Manner Expected After Incident' : Supreme Court

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by activist Tushar Gandhi seeking a proper and time-bound investigation into the incident. The case relates to a primary school teacher in Uttar Pradesh's Muzaffarnagar instructing schoolchildren to slap their Muslim classmate, a video of which became viral on social media in August.

During the last hearing, the court had asked the state government to submit an affidavit on how it intended on implementing recommendations by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) regarding the counselling for the victim. In compliance with this direction, the education department has filed an additional affidavit, the bench revealed today. Advocate Shadan Farasat, however, criticised the department's response as 'inadequate'. He said, "I have seen the affidavit. I received it only yesterday. In my respectful submission, it is inadequate."

Justice Oka, in response, asked the counsel to send the petitioner's suggestions in writing to Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad. "Whatever your suggestions are, give it to her in writing. If necessary, we will pass an order. Ultimately, we have to ensure that recommendations are substantially complied with. Give your suggestions to her."

When asked whether the child was still enrolled in the same school, AAG Prashad reiterated what the State of Uttar Pradesh and its education department said on earlier occasions. These respondents were initially reluctant to facilitate his admission to this private school under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) board, arguing that there were government schools closer to his place of residence. Even after his admission, the government had raised concerns over the socio-economic differences between the child and his classmates, as well as the distance he had to travel everyday to reach school.

During today's hearing, the law officer tried again, "That aspect is done. Although, it is for them to decide. This small child has to travel 28 kms..."

In response, Farasat pointed out that the child's father took him to the school everyday because of the quality of the education it offered. Prashad, however, argued that this was contrary to the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which mandates that students of classes I to V should reside within a one kilometre radius of the school and older students belonging to classes VI to VIII within a three kilometre radius.

"The school that was within this range did this to him," Farasat countered.

At this juncture, Justice Oka sharply rebuked the state government, remarking -

"All this happens because State does not do what it was expected to do after this offence. The State should be very concerned about the manner in which this incident has happened. Therefore, we have raised other issues also regarding implementation of the act. After going over the recommendations by TISS, we will examine whether other directions have been complied with."

Finally, adjourning the hearing until February 6, the bench pronounced, "An additional affidavit has been filed by [the education department] containing suggestions for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Tata Institute of Social Studies. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, after consulting the parents of the child, is free to give suggestions to the learned counsel appearing for [the State of Uttar Pradesh] on the aspect. List on February 9, when we will hear the parties on the implementation of the recommendations by TISS."

What has happened so far?

In September, the court directed the Muzaffarnagar police superintendent to submit a report on the investigation's progress and the steps taken to protect the minor victim, while issuing notice. After perusing the police superintendent's report, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh police's handling of the case, particularly over the delay in filing a first information report (FIR) and the omission of allegations of communal hatred from it. Consequently, the court ordered that a senior police officer investigate the case.

The state government was further asked to provide expert counselling to the victim, as well as the other children involved in the incident, and to provide facilities to the victim in terms of the Right to Education Act and Article 21A of the Constitution. During the subsequent hearing, the court came down harshly on the education department for its reluctance to facilitate the victim's admission to a private school under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) board, questioning the necessity of a committee proposed to be constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government for the process. Not only this, the bench also mulled over the idea of appointing an expert agency working in the field of child welfare to visit the victim of the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case and provide counselling to him in his home, while expressing dissatisfaction over the state government insisting that the child visit a counselling centre to receive counselling.

In a strongly worded order in November, the top court criticised the State of Uttar Pradesh and its education department for failing to comply with orders related to counseling and admission for the victim. Expressing shock at the state's approach, the court appointed the Tata Institute of Social Sciences to provide counseling and expert child counselors. The education department's principal secretary was also directed to appear virtually for the next hearing.

On the last occasion, the court revealed that the Tata Institute of Social Sciences had submitted its report and asked the government about how it intended to implement the recommendations contained in it. To this, Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad assured the court that the state government has examined, understood, and discussed the institute's recommendations. However, flagging concerns over the socioeconomic differences between the victim and other children studying in the private school as well as the distance that he had to travel every day, the government lawyer pointed out that there were several private and government schools closer to his place of residence. 

Farasat vehemently objected to the government's suggestion, pointing out, "It is the best school in town. His parents want him to be in the best school, which is why his father is making the effort to go and drop him everyday,"

"Put your suggestions across to the parents," Justice Oka told the law officer, before adding, "Ultimately, they will have to make the call. The child should be in the best possible school."

It also sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh government on how it proposed to implement the recommendations made by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. 

Background

The controversy is over a private school teacher, Tripta Tyagi, in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh instructing her students to physically assault a seven-year-old Muslim student – ostensibly as punishment for his poor performance in multiplication tables – while making communal remarks, prompting nationwide outrage. In a video that went viral in August last year, Tyagi can be heard directing students to slap the boy one by one. As the child is slapped and cries, Tyagi is heard making offensive remarks about 'Mohammedan children'.

Following the incident, a first information report (FIR) was registered against Tyagi on August 26 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 323 (punishment for causing voluntarily hurt) and Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace). In August, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also took suo moto cognizance of the incident and issued notices to the UP government's chief secretary and the director general of police, within days of a complaint being filed by UP-based lawyer SM Haider Rizvi. The commission has called for a detailed report on the matter within four weeks and expressed concern about the violation of the victim's human rights. It has also requested information on actions taken against the teacher, the status of the FIR, compensation to the affected family, and preventive measures to avoid such incidents in the future.

In September, social activist and Mahatma Gandhi's great-grandson Tushar Gandhi approached the Supreme Court, calling for an independent and time-bound probe into the incident and the prompt registration of FIRs against those responsible. In his petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Shadan Farasat, Gandhi has urged the court to direct an investigation of offences under the Indian Penal Code, including that of promoting enmity between different groups based on religion and uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings, as well as various offences under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Case Details

Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order