Madras High Court Criticises School For Denying Admission To Child With Special Needs

The sixth respondent is quite pathetically and ironically named after a third-generation American Medical Missionary in India. It makes me wonder whether those in administration today are riding on that name without following her principles or the core conduct which the noble lady adhered to.

The court was hearing a plea by a child calling upon the State and the Education Department to ensure her admission in respondent school in line with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the National Trust For Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. The petitioner's mother had contended that the child was denied admission merely by stating that she did poorly in her examination and interview when the child was only mildly autistic and was normal in all other aspects.

Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that even though towards the end of the proceedings, the respondent school had remonstrated that it would appoint special educators and would also admit the child into their school, the same appeared to be a hollow submission.

Such an offer should have given voluntarily. It should be from the heart. It should be in spirit and not in mere expression of words alone. I hold that the statement about willingness to appoint teachers trained to teach children with special needs had been stated only to brush under the carpet the earlier stand of refusal to look after those children. It is just white washing. There was no real intent.

Referring to precedents from Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court, the single judge noted that courts have always been sensitive to children with special needs and that educational institutions should rise to the occasion and motivate children to achieve their dreams.

It is thus seen that the Courts have always been sensitive to children with special needs. They have expressed hope that educational institutions would not betray children with special needs. They have called upon educational institutions to rise to the occasion and extend their arms to those children. Education signifies pulling up from the depth a child and motivate him or her to achieve his or her dream. The sixth respondent has failed not only in this duty but also betrayed the name of the noble Missionary and extremely, extremely distressingly their Christian faith.

The petitioners submitted that the school had taken an aggressive stand and refused admission to the child even though they belonged to the same community as that of the administrator of the respondent school. Even though the school’s website indicated that they offer education to children with special needs, they were now trying to evade responsibility.

During the course of the hearing, the court also directed the State to schools in the district which offer education for special children. Additional Government Pleader U Baranitharan informed the court that there were three such schools and that state would take every step to ensure that the child is given good education in any of the three schools. He further submitted that the intention of the State was to provide education to special children in an inclusive environment and not to exclude them from main stream education.

The court noted that it cannot thrust any child on any school and that it was for the child’s mother to decide assessing the best educational environment for the child.

The Court can only express it views. The Court cannot thrust any child on any school but can only open the hearts of those, who project to impart education, an education which is inclusive in nature. I would leave the options open.

Case Title: The Child rep. by her mother v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 65