RTE quota in private schools: Supreme Court pulls up NCPCR for indifference, asks chairperson to appear

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) over its approach towards implementing the 25 percent reservation for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in private unaided schools under the Right to Education Act [Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra]

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the child rights body had responded to the issue.

“How can they act so indifferent? Who heads the NCPCR? We will ask that officer to be present at the next hearing. This is not a contempt proceeding. We asked them to collate, but it is not a question of merely collating. They will have to address the purpose of Section 12 and ensure that every neighbourhood school implements the concept,” the Court said.

It thus asked the Chairperson and Director of the NCPCR to remain present before the Court at the next hearing.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The provision requires private unaided neighbourhood schools to reserve at least 25 percent of seats at the entry level for children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups and provide them free elementary education.

The Supreme Court has been monitoring the implementation of this provision across the country. In a judgment delivered in January this year, the Court had stressed that the 25 percent requirement was not merely aimed at providing free education to children from weaker and disadvantaged sections, but also at promoting social integration by enabling children from different socio-economic backgrounds to study together in neighbourhood schools.

As part of that exercise, the Court had impleaded the NCPCR for compliance and monitoring and directed it to collect information on rules and regulations issued by States and Union Territories (UTs) for implementing the provision.

During the hearing today, the Court stressed that the NCPCR’s responsibility went beyond merely collecting information from States and Union Territories.

“You know NCPCR has a very, very big role to play. You have seen our judgment, right? It’s a statutory authority. Whoever heads the NCPCR has to be sensitised to how much hope and trust has been placed on the shoulders of NCPCR,” the Court said.

It further emphasised the Commission’s role in translating the mandate of Section 12 into practice.

“It’s a regulatory body under the RTE Act. So, the purpose and object of the statute contemplated under Section 12 of the Act, about neighbourhood schools and all, they have to make it a reality,” the Court said.

The Court was told that an affidavit had been filed stating that 27 States and Union Territories have responded to the exercise and that draft Central RTE Rules had also been circulated.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati told the Court that the exercise was yet to be completed and that the NCPCR would have to undertake further steps.

“We will empower them to do more. They should not think they are just on paper,” the Court remarked.

The matter will be heard next on October 27.