"State Bound To Ensure Education Of Special Children Isn't Prematurely Interrupted": P&H High Court Orders Relief For Child With Down Syndrome

Taking into account the mandate of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that special children have a fundamental right to elementary education and the right to grow up in society up to their optimum potential.

The Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal further stressed that the state is duty bound to ensure that the education of special children is not prematurely interrupted and that adequate facilities are made available to them as well as to the schools in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The case before the Court

Essentially, the mother of a 13 year old child Mehtab was asked by the school authorities to withdraw her child who is suffering from Down Syndrome due to abnormalities in chromosomes existing in genes.

The School authorities alleged that the activities of the child in class were detrimental to the safety of other children as he had a tendency to become violent. Several other concerns were also raised and finally, the mother was asked to withdraw her child from the School.

There also existed a disagreement between the school staff and the mother regarding activities in which Mehtab should be engaged. The mother was insisting upon greater academic activity whereas according to the school the child should have been engaged in games and other activities.

Against this, she made a Complaint to the District Child Welfare Officer, Panchkula, and other concerned authorities, however, no action was taken by the authorities for the welfare of the child and therefore, the instant writ petition was filed. 

Observations made by the Court

At the outset, the Court took note of the conflict between the school authorities and Mehtab's mother, who wanted her child to be imparted education like a normal child. The court observed that conflict had remained unresolved despite the intervention of the District Authorities, who are tasked by various statutes to ensure the welfare of special children and their inclusive education.

Significantly, the Court took into account the RTE Act, 2009 to note that it gives a fundamental right to each and every child of the age of six to fourteen to elementary education and that it includes those children who are disadvantaged or have disabilities and are special children requiring special assistance.

In view of the facts of the case, the Court pointed out that on one hand the mother is unable to adjust to the limitation of her child and on the other hand, the school is unable to sensitize her.

Amidst this, the Court added, the officials of the appropriate Government failed to smoothen out the wrinkles, probably because they themselves lacked adequate training and sensitization as they conducted inquiries in a purely bureaucratic manner and placed the blame squarely on the child without realizing that the child needs special assistance and that it is their job to provide such assistance or at least make the same available.

Further, noting that the child has been excluded from the community and has been deprived of his right to inclusive education, the Court stressed the duty of the state in such cases by observing thus:

"The State is thus duty bound to ensure that education of such children is not prematurely interrupted and that adequate facilities are made available to them as well as to the schools in accordance with the statutory provisions. Elementary education for special children would mean education commensurate with their physical and mental capabilities and this would include the concept of "inclusive education" as defined in the Disabilities Act. Towards this end, the State has to provide counseling facilities for parents as well so that they may be made to adjust to the limitation of their children and accept their development commensurate with the disabilities."

Regarding the duty of the shcool in such cases, the Court noted that it had been completely remiss in performing its obligations. Underlining the onerous responsibility of schools in such cases, the Court further remarked thus:

"Keeping in view the fundamental right to education of special children, a very onerous responsibility is cast upon the school which is to provide inclusive education. If difficulties are experienced by the child or by other children due to interaction between them, the school must ensure that professional guidance is made available for their solution. A school cannot lay the blame on the child or the parent and absolve itself of its responsibilities because it has been set up for the purposes of imparting education and it is its duty to impart such education even in the face of problems."

Further, the Court also opined that the State in the instant case remained blissfully unaware of its duties which include provision of necessary infrastructural support such as resource centers and research institutions. Instead, the Court remarked: "it has supported the school in blaming the child. The actions of the school and the State deserve to be deprecated in the strongest terms."

Consequently, the Court directed that till the time Mehtab remains in school, he shall not be charged for his education, however, the Court did clarify that in case the mother wants to move him to another institution, a school leaving certificate shall be made available on demand. Thus, the writ petition was partly allowed.

Case title - Mehtab and another v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 196 

Click here To Read/Download Order