Read Time: 14 minutes
Justice Dinesh Mehta of the Rajasthan High Court has held that State seeking to convert Hindi medium school to English medium is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
The plea has been filed by School Development Management Committee (‘SDMC’) a statutory body constituted under section 21 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petition has been filed challenging State Government’s decision by which Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School, has been converted to an English Medium School - Mahatma Gandhi Government School (English Medium).
The petitioner’s contended that they are not against English medium schools, but are against over-night conversion of the school in question.
The Court delivered the ordered and answer six primary questions, as follows:
The Court observed that Article 21A of the Constitution is tethered with the words “in such manner, as the State, may, by law determine”, therefore the State may by law provide the medium and manner to provide such free education, which in a given case can be Hindi, English or even regional dialect - the mother tongue of the child. Hence, no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be instructed in a particular language or the mother tongue only. The Court cites State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors to strengthen its position.
The Court observed the right to have education in mother tongue or in a particular medium is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, such right is subject to reasonable restriction. In this case, the State’s policy decision, cannot whittle down the fundamental right of a child to be taught in a particular medium, which is assured rather protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that reading of the Rajasthan Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 the Court is unable to conclude that prescription of medium of instruction is a decision to be taken by the School Management Committee, as a part of school development plan. Preparing a school development plan cannot be misconstrued to mean the prescription of syllabus and medium of instructions. It has to be done by the experts in the field of education/child education.
The Court observed that a conjoint reading of section 21 and 22 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 3 and 22 of the Rules of 2011, shows that it is not within the domain of the SDMC to decide as to what language pupil of the school will be instructed in. The Court further observed that changing the medium of instruction of a school which houses 601 rural students, out of which 303 are girls and a major part of them hail from lower strata, including SC, ST, OBC and minorities cannot be countenanced by this Court.
“Scooping out 601 students with one stroke of pen in a bargain of an assurance of being accommodated in nearby schools is violative of their Constitutional rights. The same is likely to affect their emotional quotient as well. Because, for children, their school is not only a structure made of stones, cement and concrete – it is a second home or sort of a temple, where they flock to learn; to play and to grow. Their bonding, resulting from the togetherness, helps them to grow as a society and a community,” the Court remarked.
“Merely because the State has taken a stand that in view of the demand of more English medium schools, one English medium school in all villages having the population of more than 5000 should be established, the opinion of the SDMC cannot be given a go bye – altogether. The argument that there is no requirement of consent of the SDMC, for the school in question, as it is founded; funded; maintained and controlled by the State, cannot be accepted.”
The court, while quashing the state's decision, remarked, "The defence, which the State has taken that the children of this school will be accommodated in nearby schools, cannot be accepted as a valid justification for uprooting 601 saplings (students) from the present school to be implanted in nearby schools, even if they are within the vicinity of 2 kms. Such action in no case can be taken in the middle of academic session 2011-22."
The Court observed that as per Section 29 of the RTE Act curriculum and evaluation procedure shall be laid down by the Academic Authority. Rule 22 of Rules, 2011, which have been framed in exercise of powers available to the State under section 38 of the RTE Act is the relevant provision, which provides for and speaks of an Academic Authority. The court opined that since the medium of instruction is to be determined by the Academic Authority, which in the State of Rajasthan is Rajasthan School Education Council, the School Management Committee, cannot decide the medium of instruction may it be Hindi or English.
Further, as per Section 29(2)(f) of the Act of 2009 and the National Education Policy, 2020 the medium of education or instruction till elementary level shall be in mother tongue. Hence, “the conversion of the school in question to English medium is, therefore, clearly contrary to the provisions of section 21, 22, 29(1) and 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act,” the Court found.
Thus, the Court concluded that, “English, as a medium of instruction cannot be thrusted upon a child even by a legislation enacted by the State Government, much less by a policy decision.” However, since the petitioners are per se not against the decision of the state, the Court allowed the plea and held that if a majority of the members of the School Development Management Committee resolve that the school be converted to an English-medium school, only then will the State’s decision be given effect to.
School Development Management Committee, Shri Hari Singh Senior Secondary School and Ors v. State Of Rajasthan and Anr
Please Login or Register
