Duty orientation a significant feature of right to education: Supreme Court asks NIOS to fix exam centres which are accessible to students

The Supreme Court recently laid down that a significant feature of right to education under Article 21A is in duty orientation, which commences from a parent and extends to the State and its instrumentalities, to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years [Pragya Higher Secondary School v National Institute Of Open Schooling]..A Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and PS Narasimha was hearing a plea seeking directions to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) to evolve a policy of distance criteria while fixing examination centres for public examinations conducted by them."Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, amended Part-III, Part-IV as well as Part IVA of the Constitution and introduced Articles 21A4 , Article 455 and Article 51A(k)6 , in the parts relating to Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. A significant feature of these amendments is in the duty orientation, commencing from a parent and extending to the State and its instrumentalities, to provide free and compulsory education to all children upto the age of fourteen years," the Court said. This duty orientation obligating the State and its instrumentalities is specifically provided by the parliament in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court further explained. "Chapter III of the Act incorporates the ‘Duties of Appropriate Government, Local Authority and Parents’. Chapter IV, adopting the same rigour imposes ‘Responsibilities of the Schools and Teachers’. This significant feature, imposing duties is over and above the Right to Free and Compulsory Education of every child provided in Chapter II of the Act. It is also the duty of the Constitutional Courts to recognize and interpret these Articles in the same spirit and give effect to the provisions of the Act," the judgment stated. .In view of the above, the Court directed the NIOS to endeavour to fix examination centres within a distance of 10 kilometres from the accredited institutions since a substantial number of students resorting to open schooling invariably come from rural areas.“Most of these students come from poor strata of the society, depend on unreliable public transport and in all probability are employed for their livelihood. It is not difficult to imagine the consequences of inaccessible examination centres for such student,” the Court said.Accredited institutions are institutions with which NIOS collaborates to provide better services to the stakeholders by accrediting them as partners.NIOS has more than 1,800 such accredited institutions spread across the Country..The petitioner, an accredited institution of the NIOS, claimed that students connected with their centre had to travel approximately 50 kilometers by road to appear for examinations, even though eligible institutions were present within 10 kilometres..The bench, therefore, observed that a duty was cast upon the NIOS to fix examination centres to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease.“It is for NIOS to go an extra mile rather than expecting the students to walk long distances from villages and towns to take the examination,” the Court underscored. .Therefore, the top court passed the following directions to the NIOS in light of the fundamental right to education, coupled with the constitutional right of free and compulsory education of children under the age of fourteen years under Article 21A, as well as the duties imposed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:“a) NIOS should develop and implement criteria with respect to fixation of examination centres that would be accessible from the accredited institutions with which the aspirants are connected.b) NIOS shall endeavor to fix the examination centres, within a distance of 10 kilometers from the accredited institutions with which they are connected.c) While fixing the examination centres, NIOS shall be at liberty to take into account the credibility of the Institution offering to be an examination centre and such other factors as are necessary to ensure integrity of the examination including law and order.”.Advocates Rishi Malhotra and Jaydip Pati appeared for the petitioner while the respondent was represented by advocates Shiv Kumar Pandey, Awanish Kumar, Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi, Anshul Rai, Abhinav Garg, D Girish Kumar, Kumar Vinayakam Gupta..[Read Order]