Digital divide violates RTE Act, Art 14, 20, 21: Delhi HC directs pvt unaided schools, KVs to give gadgets to EWS students for online class

The Delhi High Court has directed private unaided schools and government Schools like Kendriya Vidyalayas to supply gadgets and internet package to students from EWS category to facilitate online learning. (Justice for All vs GNCTD & Ors).The Court has clarified that the gadget and internet package shall be provided free of cost to the students but the schools can claim reimbursement from the State in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Right To Education (RTE) Act, 2009..Intra-class discrimination, especially inter-se 75% fee paying students viz-a-viz 25% EWS/DG students upsets the 'level playing field‘ and amounts to discrimination as well as creates a vertical division, digital divide or digital gap or 'digital apartheid‘ in addition to segregation in a classroom which is violative of RTE Act, 2009 and Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution.Delhi High Court said. .The judgment was passed by a Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula in a petition preferred by NGO, Justice For All..The Petitioner had submitted that the absence of computers/mobile phones with EWS/DG category students studying in private unaided schools was preventing them from attending online classes. .This situation, the Petitioner argued, was in violation of not only the provisions of Right to Education Act but also Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India..Delhi HC issues notice in plea to provide free laptop/ mobile phone with internet to EWS category students for online classes.The Petitioner claimed that as per Section 7 of the RTE Act, 2009, the Central Government and State Government/Delhi Government had a concurrent responsibility to provide funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act..The Delhi Government claimed that it had taken all steps to impart curricular education to its school children amid COVID-19 pandemic and the same was effective, satisfactory and good enough to cover the minimum required obligations under Section 3 RTE Act. .The Court was informed that Delhi Government had directed that schools were duty-bound to ensure that facility for online learning is made available to EWS/DG students. .Central Government also claimed that it was carrying out its obligations as per the RTE Act, 2009 in respect of the schools it administers, namely Kendriya Vidyalayas. .It was submitted that those students who did not have laptop or phones were imparted education through TV channels, contact programmes, worksheets and assignments sent by post. .The Court also heard in detail the counsel for municipal bodies and several Delhi-based schools. .In view of the submissions before it, the Court held that the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009 could be interpreted in a dynamic manner, according to the evolving needs of the society and extend the same to the advent of new technologies. .It observed that "Education" was not defined under the RTE Act and that it was not a static but an evolving and a dynamic concept. .In view of the present scenario, the Court thus held, ... the concept of Synchronous Face-to-Face Real Time Online Education like any other alternate means/methods of dissemination of education, in that sense, is covered under the RTE Act, 2009...there is no statutory bar on neighbourhood schools imparting online education by digital means..The Court clarified that imparting online education was, therefore, not as a voluntary or social service but as part of a school's responsibilities under the RTE Act, 2009..Insofar as method and mode of providing education was concerned, the Court held that the same could be different for different schools, private or government. ."(But)there has to be one common minimum level/standard of impartation of education for all schools. Further, the said school has to then ensure that the same is uniformly adopted and followed sans any discrimination.", the Court added. .The Court noted that there could not be discrimination amongst students qua matters pertaining to entitlements and facilities which included information and communication technology facilities i.e. digital education. .It thus held that if a school decided to voluntarily provide "Synchronous Face-to-Face Real-Time Online Education" as a method/mode for teaching, they would have to ensure that the students belonging to EWS/DG category also have access and are able to avail the same..After all, equality of status and opportunity is one of the cherished goals of Indian Constitution. To separate the EWS/DG students from others in the same class due to non-availability of a gadget / device would generate a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the class that may affect their hearts and minds unlikely ever to be undone. Segregation in Education is a denial of equal protection of the laws under Artcle 14 of the Constitution and in particular Sections 3(2) and 12(1)(c) of RTE Act, 2009. Colin Powell former Secretary of State USA, characterised the gap between those who have access to the wonders of digital technology and the Internet, and those who do not, as ―digital apartheid..After a detailed analysis of RTE Act and other related Rules and Schemes, the Court remarked that even though the cost of gadget/digital equipment was not a part of the tuition fee, yet it had to be provided free of cost to the EWS/DG students in terms of Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 3(2) of the RTE Act, 2009. ."..cost of such equipment would be covered under Rule 11 of the Central RTE Rules, 2010 as well as Rule 10 of the Delhi RTE Rules, 2011 and Section 3(2) of the RTE Act, 2009 inasmuch as an absence of such equipment will prevent the child from pursuing his or her elementary education at par with other students in the same class in the present scenario.", the Court said. .To ensure uniformity as well as to expedite and streamline the process, the Court further directed the constitution of a three-member committee to frame a Standard Operating Procedure for identification of standard gadget(s)/equipment(s) as well as the manufacturer/supplier and internet package so that EWS/DG students can access elementary education through digital online means. .The petition was accordingly disposed of. .Advocates Khagesh B Jha, Shikha Sharma Bagga appeared for the Petitioner. .Read the Judgement: