Muzaffarnagar School Slapping | No Quality Education If Students Aren't Taught Values Of Equality, Secularism & Fraternity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 12) underscored the significance of inculcating constitutional values such as equality, secularism, and fraternity in students while dealing with a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident.

“The state cannot ignore the fact that ultimate object of rendering quality education is to ensure that the children become good citizens in true sense, who are aware about ethos and values of Constitution of India. The state needs to concentrate on this aspect, especially when we have completed 75 long years of existence of our Constitution. We grant time of one month to the state to take appropriate decisions and to place the same on the record six weeks in form of an affidavit”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned why UP government had not complied with its directions in the second paragraph, page four of its order dated September 25, 2023, on the aspect of inculcating the importance of constitutional values in children.

“In our order, we have observed that the object of the state act is to provide quality education. Unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. The state's response is silent on this aspect”, the Court stated.

During the hearing, Justice Oka said that this order is important to address such incidents. “But at grassroot level, this happens that teachers tell the students that this person belongs to a particular community or religion, therefore he should be assaulted. Therefore, this second paragraph is important”, he remarked.

In the September 2023 order, the Court had observed : "When the object of the RTE Act is to provide quality education, unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. There cannot be quality education if, in a school, a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community."

The Court expressed concerns about the state's implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, particularly Sections 12 and 17, and the compliance with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011.

The bench noted that the issue of discrimination, physical punishment, and awareness mechanisms required action from the state government.

Directions on Compliance with the RTE Act

The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to submit an affidavit within six weeks addressing:

1. Steps taken to issue directions to all schools for strict compliance with Section 17(1) of the RTE Act, which prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment of children.

2. Efforts made to publicize grievance redressal mechanisms for parents and ensure their active involvement.

3. Implementation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, which obligates local authorities to prevent caste, class, religious, or gender discrimination in schools.

Additionally, the court questioned the state on its efforts to promote regular parent-teacher meetings in grassroots level schools.

Implementation of 25 percent EWS quote

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the petitioner (Tushar Gandhi) raised concerns about the lack of implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. He argued that the state had misinterpreted the provision as capping the admission of economically weaker section (EWS) children at 25 percent, rather than treating it as a minimum requirement.

Justice Oka responded that such an interpretation might not align with the Act. Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad for Uttar Pradesh assured the court that the interpretation would be corrected, but Farasat submitted that ground-level compliance was still absent.

Measures against corporal punishment

The Court questioned the state on the lack directions to schools under Section 17(1) of the RTE Act. The AAG referenced existing government orders banning corporal punishment, but the Court insisted on specific directions to be issued to schools.

Justice Oka remarked, “Where are the directions issued to schools? In no uncertain terms, these instructions have to be issued.”

“See, we tell you, this may be tip of the iceberg. One incident brought to the notice about physical punishment given”, he added.

The AAG outlined measures taken by the state, including training teachers on the 2011 Rules, translating guidelines into Hindi and Urdu, and ensuring their availability in schools. Additionally, she informed the Court about instructions to school managements to include discussions on the RTE Act and grievance redressal mechanisms during parent-teacher meetings.

However, Justice Oka questioned the efficacy of such measures, asking, “In how many schools at the grassroots level are parent-teacher meetings actually held?” He asked the AAG to take instructions on this aspect.

The Court directed, “The issue is in what manner the availability of grievance redressal mechanism will be informed to the parents. Unless the parents are made aware of the availability of such mechanism, the same will remain on paper. State needs to take further steps on this aspect.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 3, 2025.

The Court directed the Union of India to communicate this order, and the order dated September 25, 2023, to the education departments of all states by the Union of India for effective implementation of the RTE Act.

Background

The PIL arises from a viral video of a teacher, Tripta Tyagi, instructing students to slap a seven-year-old Muslim boy and allegedly making derogatory remarks about his religion. The court noted its prior observation that such actions, if proven, would constitute a severe violation of Section 17(1) of the RTE Act. The state government was earlier directed to ensure the victim's continued education, provide counselling, and implement comprehensive guidelines for eliminating corporal punishment.

In the previous hearing on November 28, the petitioner told the Supreme Court that while Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 exists to protect children against religious discrimination in school, the authorities are not acknowledging the problem and addressing it.

Case no. – WP (Crl.) No. 406/2023

Case Title – Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh