Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | Authorities Not Acknowledging Problem Of Religious Discrimination: PIL Petitioner Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat told the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 28) that while Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 exists to protect children against religious discrimination in school, the authorities are not acknowledging the problem and addressing it.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case and the implementation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.

The case involves allegations of religious discrimination and physical punishment of a minor student by a teacher in Uttar Pradesh.

“The second is the issue of religious discrimination. There is a Rule - Rule 5, but they don't seem to be actually acknowledging the problem. We have to first acknowledge the problem and then deal with it. So, they are not acknowledging it and then specifically dealing with it”, Farasat said, appearing for the petitioner Tushar Gandhi.

Rule 5 mandates that the local authority must ensure that no child faces caste, class, religious or gender abuse in the school.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the petitioner highlighted that the father of the child had not received a travel reimbursement of Rs. 200 per day of school attendance since July 2024. The child, however, continues to attend school and is doing well, he said.

“The child is continuing in the school; he is doing very well. He has settled very well and it has been a very fruitful exercise of getting him to school”, he said.

Farasat highlighted three key issues in the case. First, the full implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, which mandates that private unaided non-minority schools allocate at least 25 percent of entry-level seats for children from disadvantaged sections. Second issue is about religious discrimination.

Third, the chargesheet filed in the case, which Farasat claimed doesn't seem to invoke the second proviso to Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (punishment for cruelty to child) as previously directed by the court.

Justice Oka said that all three issues will be considered.

The Court directed Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad of Uttar Pradesh to appear on the next date and ensure the release of travel reimbursements to the child's father before the next hearing.

“We are adjourning the matter till 12th December to be listed at 3:00 p.m. There is an affidavit filed by the father of the child on 25th of November 2024. He has made a grievance that since July 2024 he has not received travel reimbursement which was paid earlier. We direct learned AAG to take instructions on this regard and ensure that the payment is released”, the Court stated in its order.

Background

The PIL stems from a viral video showing a teacher, Tripta Tyagi, instructing students to slap a seven-year-old Muslim boy and making derogatory remarks about his religion. The incident, which occurred in August 2023, led to widespread outrage.

The court last year noted a “prima facie failure on the part of the State” to adhere to the Right to Education Act and rules, which prohibit the physical and mental harassment of students, and their discrimination based on religion and caste.

The court has been monitoring the issue, expressing dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh police's initial investigation and delays in registering an FIR. It ordered a senior police officer to oversee the case and directed the state to ensure compliance with provisions under the Right to Education Act and Article 21A of the Constitution.

In previous hearings, the Court has criticized the state government for its approach, including its reluctance to facilitate the victim's admission to a private school under the Central Board of Secondary Education board.

The state had argued against the private school admission, citing long distance of travel and socioeconomic differences with other students. However, the court directed the admission and mandated support for the child's educational needs, including counselling by expert organizations like the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

Case no. – WP (Crl.) No. 406/2023

Case Title – Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order