Madras High Court pulls up school for denying admission to child with mild autism; says schools should extend arms to such children

The Madras High Court recently came down upon a private school in Tamil Nadu for for having denied admission to a child diagnosed with mild autism [The Child v State]. .In a judgement passed on February 22, Justice CV Karthikeyan reminded that the purpose of education is to augment a child's capabilities and her achieve her dreams and educational institutions have to be sensitive to children with special needs. "It is thus seen that the courts have always been sensitive to children with special needs. They have expressed hope that educational institutions would not betray children with special needs. They have called upon educational institutions to rise to the occasion and extend their arms to those children. Education signifies pulling up from the depth a child and motivate him or her to achieve his or her dream," the Court said.The Court was hearing a petition filed by a woman on behalf of her minor daughter, who had been denied admission by the respondent School in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, despite having advertised on its website that it had trained teachers to cater to students with special needs. The School had initially denied having made such advertisement. It had then claimed that the minor girl had performed poorly in her written admission test and thus, could not be admitted. The woman argued that in denying her daughter admission, the school had breached provisions of the Right to Education Act and the object of the law relating to persons with disabilities. She, therefore, urged Court to direct the respondent school to admit the child. .During the course of the hearing, the Tamil Nadu government submitted a list of three schools in Vellore equipped to cater to children with special needs. The State told the Court that the girl will be admitted to any of the three schools that her mother choses. The respondent-school too eventually submitted that it was in the process of hiring trained special educators and was now willing to admit the girl..The High Court, however, said that the School's statement seemed more of an attempt to brush its previous stance "under the carpet." It also noted that the school was named after a Christian missionary, but in denying the child admission, it had gone against the very principles of benevolence and humanity that Christianity and the missionary stood for."The sixth respondent has failed not only in this duty but also betrayed the name of the noble Missionary and extremely, extremely distressingly their Christian faith," the High Court said.The Court however, said it did not wish to come in the way of the mother's choice and said that she was free to chose to admit her ward to the respondent-school or to any of the three schools highlighted by the State.It added though that if the woman choses the respondent-school for her child, the school management must not hold the present litigation against her. Advocate N Manokaran appeared for the petitioner. Additional Government Pleader U Baranitharan appeared fir the Tamil Nadu government. Advocate David Sunder Singh appeared for the TN State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.M/s S Ramasubramaniam & Associates appeared for the respondent School..[Read Order]