PIL before Delhi High Court challenges law barring teachers from giving private tuition

The Delhi High Court was on Wednesday privy to intense arguments over a plea challenging the law prohibiting school teachers from undertaking private tuitions or private teaching activity [Mr Prem Prakash Dhawan v Union of India & Ors]. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, prima facie expressed unwillingness to agree with the petitioner, a retired teacher at Delhi Public School, and questioned why he did not approach the Court when he was in service. 

“The fact that he [petitioner] did not have the guts to approach the Court while he was in service is creating apprehension. He did not approach because it would have affected his service and remuneration,” the Bench remarked.  

Advocate Tanmaya Mehta appeared for the petitioner and said that serving teachers may be apprehensive about filing the plea because it may lead to disciplinary action against them. 

Mehta added that it is a known fact that teachers give private tuitions and that education imparted in many schools is not enough to clear competitive exams, forcing students to turn to private tuitions. 

The Bench shot back, saying if that is true, then the petitioner (a former teacher himself) has failed society. 

“You are a retired teacher, you have failed the society,” the Bench said. 

Mehta responded, 

“Maybe I failed… But I am now trying to correct it.”

The petitioner, Prem Prakash Dhawan, approached the High Court challenging Section 28 of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act) and Rule 113 as well as 123(1)(a)(viii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules).

While Section 28 of the RTE Act says that no teacher shall engage himself or herself in private tuition or private teaching activity, Section 113 of the DSE Rules states that "no teacher shall undertake private tuitions or private employment or otherwise engage himself in any business". 

Rule 123(1)(a)(viii) says that no teacher shall "accept any job of a remunerative character from any source other than the school or give private tuition to any student or other person or engage himself in any business".

While arguing the case, Mehta said that Right to Information (RTI) replies received from the authorities showed that no action has been taken against teachers providing private tuition.

“Is the ill of a private teacher providing tuition in the evening worse than allowing alcohol? We can’t judge the law based on bad apples. I am saying regulate it, but this blanket ban is unreasonable,” he said.

However, the Bench said that just because no murders are committed in Delhi for 10 years, it does not mean that the criminal provision penalising murder should be done away with. 

“Suppose in Delhi no murder takes place for 10 years, then we do away with Section 302 IPC? Generation of knowledge, generation of teaching material is not barred if you want to do it for free do it,” the Bench said. 

Mehta stated that even pro bono teaching is barred under the law. 

“I would be happy if my lords were to clarify that pro bono teaching is not barred,” he added. 

After hearing the arguments from Mehta, the Bench asked for the views of the Union of India and the Delhi government.

But since the counsel appearing for the authorities were not present, the Court said that it would hear the case on November 12. 

As the hearing drew to a close, Mehta said that arguing the case before the Court was like facing bouncers from former Australian cricketer Brett Lee.

Delhi Government Standing Counsel (Civil), who was present in the Court. said that even though the bowling was fast, Mehta faced the deliveries on the front foot.

"This is how the law develops," the Bench remarked.

Advocates Tanmaya Mehta, Prabhas Bajaj, Karmanya Singh Sareen, Krishnagopal Abhay, Sahib Singh Dhillon and Pari Bhardwaj appeared for the petitioner.