RTE rule to have schools in every neighbourhood can't be rigidly viewed: Kerala HC rejects plea by Lakshadweep students

The Kerala High Court recently held that provisions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (2010 Rules), requiring that there be a school within "walking distance" in every "neighbourhood" cannot be rigidly interpreted..Justice N Nagaresh made the observation while upholding the shifting and consolidation of certain primary school classes in Lakshadweep. The judge noted that defining 'neighbourhood schools' with clinical precision or exact mathematical calculations would be a Himalayan task in a geographically diverse country like India.He pointed out that the legislature had consciously left it open for the appropriate governments to define the term 'neighbourhood area' so that governments could determine the scope of the term based on each locality where a school would be situated."The term 'neighbourhood' therefore cannot be defined with clinical precision or mathematical exactitude, for the purpose of the RTE Act. The Union Legislature rightly left it to be decided by appropriate State Governments / Union Territories. The term “neighbourhood” only refers to the locality," the February 10 ruling said..The Court passed the judgment on petitions filed on behalf of minor students (petitioners) from the Agatti and Andrott islands in Lakshadweep, challenging orders issued by the Director of Education for shifting classes from certain Junior Basic Schools to other nearby schools.In Agatti, classes functioning in PM SHRI JB School (South) were ordered to be shifted to the Government JB School (North) Building and in Andrott, classes from Government Junior Basic School (GJBS), Machery were proposed to be shifted to Government SB School, Edachery.The petitioners, however, contended that the shifting of the schools would compel children to travel more than three kilometres and would deprive them of access to a school within one kilometre.This, they argued, would violate Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2010 Rules, which states that every child must have a school within a walking distance of one kilometre of the neighbourhood.They highlighted that Section 6 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), clearly mandated the establishment of a school within the prescribed neighbourhood limits.They contended that the closure of functioning schools would violate this provision and defeat the object of Article 21A (Right to Education) of the Indian Constitution as well as violate Articles 14 (right to equality)and 21 (right to life and liberty)..The Lakshadweep administration countered that the school building in Agatti was in a dilapidated condition, with insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the students and had been surveyed for demolition.The administration also highlighted the poor condition of the building at Adrott, which itself is a small island measuring only 4.66 km in length with a population of around 11,191 and six primary schools functioning within a compact area..The Court examined Section 6 of the RTE Act and noted that while the provision mandated the establishment of schools within prescribed neighbourhood limits, the Central rules of 2010 applicable to Lakshadweep did not define 'neighbourhood' or 'walking distance'.In contrast, certain States such as Kerala, Mizoram, Tripura and Madhya Pradesh had framed specific definitions in their respective RTE rules.The Court, thus, observed that what constituted a neighbourhood in a dense urban locality might differ significantly from that in a small island or rural setting and said that the terms were defined based on the locality and should be understood contextually.Taking note of the geographical realities of Lakshadweep, the Court added that even after the proposed shifting, three schools would continue to function on the island.The Court, thus, held that the administrative decision to consolidate schools would not amount to a violation of Section 6 of the RTE Act or Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2010 Rules.Finding no illegality in the orders under challenge, the Court dismissed the writ petitions..The petitioners were represented by Advocates Rilgin V George, KT Raveendran, Akshara KP, Meera J Menon, Arathy PS, Anagha Manoj, KM Firoz, ABM Hamdullah Sayeed, Sayyid Mohammed Nilamuddin M, and Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi.The Union Territory of Lakshadweep was represented by central government counsel KS Prenjith Kumar..[Read Judgment]