Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today(September 29) criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for its indifferent resposne to a matter pertaining to the implementation of 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools.

It therefore directed the Chairperson and the Director of the NCPCR to be physically present in the next hearing relating to the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided schools must admit 25% of their strength from students belonging to economically weaker sections for free education.

It may be recalled that in January, the Court passed a slew of directions so that 25% seats are reserved for EWS students, observing that the concept of "neighbourhood schools" is envisaged to break barriers of class, caste and gender. The NCPCR was added as a party to monitor the implementation of the RTE Act, which already has a Standard of Procedure (SoP) in this regard.

Today, the matter came up before a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, who went through the affidavit of the NCPCR and termed it "unsatisfactory".


The bench told Additional Solicitor General Aiswarya Bhati(who was appearing for NCPCR) that the NCPCR has a very significant role to play in the effective implementation of the reservation. 

Justice Narasimha said: "ASG Aishwarya, you know NCPCR has a very big role to play. You have seen our judgment, right? It's a statutory authority; whoever heads the NCPCR [needs to] get sensitised to how much hope and trust has been placed on the shoulders of NCPCR. It's a regulatory body under the Right to Education Act. So, the purpose and the object of the statute contemplated under Section 12 of the Act, neighbourhood schools and all, they have to make it a reality."

He added: "How can they act so indifferent? Who heads the NCPCR? We will ask them to be present. This is not a contempt. It's not a question of collating; they will have to address the purpose of Section 12 and see that every neighbourhood school implements the concept."

Case Details:  DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017 Diary No. 8696 / 2017

 


Tags: