Not attending schools having psychological impact on children: Delhi High Court refuses to stay decision to fully reopen schools

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Delhi government’s decision on full resumption of physical classes in schools from April 1 [Anand Kumar Pandey v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr]..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said that the there is no credible study or data to suggest that children are at high risk of contracting COVID-19. In fact, studies showed that not attending school had a negative psychological impact on children, the Court noted.“There has to be a balance. Children are losing much more by not attending schools and there is no data to show that they are at high risk. In fact, so many studies show a negative psychological impact on the children by not attending schools. They are not able to develop social and behavioural skills or interpersonal skills. There is nothing to show that children’s right to life is being endangered by the government order,” Justice Sanghi said..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Advocate Anand Kumar Pandey seeking a direction to the Delhi government to recall its order directing 100% resumption physical classes, till all school-going children are vaccinated.A direction was also sought to ensure that schools give an option to parents whether they want to send their children to school or not since unvaccinated children are at a high risk of contracting the virus..The Bench, however, said that there is no report from an expert saying that children are more vulnerable to the virus. Justice Sanghi further said,“Please show us any report or statement by a knowledgeable person saying it is not safe for children to go to school. If the parents are so scared, let them not send their children. In fact, most parents are fed up.".The Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the petition, noting,“The present petition is founded only upon the petitioner’s own opinion and there is no substantive basis for the petitioner to entertain the apprehension that he has expressed. We do not find any merit in this petition and it is therefore dismissed."