Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale and Justice AS Gadkari held that imprisonment does not restrict an individual’s right to pursue education.                        

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The petitioner is an accused against whom the case has been registered under Section 153A, 505 (1) (B), 117, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.  
• The chargesheet was filed and the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 
• The case against the accused is pending before the Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. 
• The petitioner is currently detained in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. 
• The petitioner appeared in Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) law examination pursuant to the permission granted by the Special Judge. 
• He was ranked at Serial No. 95 in the final merit list. 
• He was provisionally allotted a seat in Siddharth Law College and his sister paid the required fee to freeze the seat allotted to the Petitioner. 
• The petitioner was required to be physically present for verification of his documents for the purpose of taking admission. However, he was not present physically as he was detained in the Taloja Central Prison. 
• It is the case of the petitioner that an order was passed on 21st September 2023 releasing the petitioner on bail. However, NIA has preferred Special Leave Petition assailing the order. 
• The petitioner that he should be allowed to take admission in the Siddharth Law College as right to education is a fundamental right. 
• The Counsel for the Siddharth Law College, however, submitted that LL.B. is a professional course and the University Rules require a candidate to have compulsory minimum attendance of 75% during every Academic Year. The petitioner being in jail would undoubtedly not be able to fulfill the above attendance requirement. 
• Thus, the matter was before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the petitioner appeared for the CET examination to seek admission for the LL.B course in a law college. 
• The Court held that in such a scenario denying the opportunity to take admission in the College despite seat being allotted by following the due process as prescribed is a violation of the fundamental right of the Petitioner. 
• Thus, the Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to take admission in the LL.B course in the Siddharth Law College. 
• Further the Court held that since the college requires physical presence of a candidate for verification of documents the Court left it to the College to consider permitting the authorized representative/next of kin of the Petitioner to physically attend the College and verify the documents or in the alternative, to take the signature of the Petitioner on the documents from the Taloja Central Prison. 
• However, the Court clarified that the petitioner was not granted any exemption from satisfying any of the requirements of the University and the Siddharth Law College that the candidates are required as per prevailing rules and regulations. 
• Also, the University and the College were at liberty to refuse permission to the Petitioner from appearing in the examination for failure to satisfy the minimum attendance criteria or any other eligibility criteria.  

What is Right to Education? 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) that the citizens of the country have a fundamental right to education. 
  • The Court held in this case that such right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• Subsequently, Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted which introduced the following constitutional amendments: 
  • Article 21 A:  
    • This was inserted in Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights. 
    • This provision provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law determine. 
  • Article 45:  
    • This was inserted in Part IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy. 
    • The Article provides that the State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years. 
  • Article 51 A:  
    • This was inserted in Part IV A i.e. Fundamental Duties. 
    • Article 51A lists the fundamental duties of every citizen. 
    • Clause (k) was added in these duties and it was provided that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India ‘who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.’ 
• Further, to enforce Article 21A the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE Act) was enacted in 2009.

What are the Relevant International Legal Provisions Regarding Right to Education? 

• Article 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
  • Education shall be free at least in elementary and fundamental stages. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 
  • Education shall promote tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial and religious groups. 
  •  Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. 
• Article 28 of Convention on the Rights of the Child 
  • States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, 
  • States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention. 
  • States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, 
• Article 13 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC) 
  • The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. 
  • No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions. 
• Article 14 of ICESC 
  • Each State Party shall provide compulsory primary education, free of charge and work out a detailed plan of action in this regard.   

What is the Right to Education Act, 2009? 

• Article 21A and the RTE Act came into effect on 1^st April 2010. 
• The title of the Act incorporates the words ‘free and compulsory’.  
• ‘Free education’ means that no child, other than a child who has been admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.  
• With the enactment of this Act India moved towards rights-based framework wherein the duty is cast on the Central and the State Government to implement this fundamental child right as enshrined in Article 21 A of the Constitution. 
• The RTE Act provides for: 
  • Right of children to free and compulsory education till completion of elementary education in a neighborhood school. 
  • It makes provisions for a non-admitted child to be admitted to an age appropriate class. 
  • It specifies the duties and responsibilities of appropriate Governments, local authority and parents in providing free and compulsory education, and sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and State Governments. 
  • It provides for appointment of appropriately trained teachers, i.e. teachers with the requisite entry and academic qualifications. 
  • It prohibits: 
    • physical punishment and mental harassment;  
    • screening procedures for admission of children; 
    • capitation fee;  
    • private tuition by teachers and  
    • running of schools without recognition, 
  • It lays down the norms and standards relating inter alia to Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs), buildings and infrastructure, school-working days, teacher-working hours. 

What are the Landmark Cases on Right to Education? 

• Unni Krishnan JP And Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. (1993) 
  • The Supreme Court held that right to education flows directly from the right to life and right to education is concomitant to the fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The effect of holding that right to education is implicit in the right to life is that the State cannot deprive the citizen of his right to education except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.
• Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (2012) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 12 of the RTE Act which requires that all schools (whether state funded or private) to accept 25% intake from disadvantaged groups. 
  • The Court in this case reiterated that it is the primary obligation of State to provide free and compulsory education to all children, especially those who cannot afford primary education.
• Master Jai Kumar Through his Father Manish Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth and Ors. (2024) 
  • The Delhi High Court in this case held that imparting of education by an unaided private institution falls within the definition of public duty. 
  • The Court in this case held that denial of admission to any child after allotment of seats violates the objective of the RTE Act.