Supreme Court Directs States To Notify Inclusion Of Orphans Under RTE Act, Orders Survey Of Denied Admissions

Supreme Court Directs States To Notify Inclusion Of Orphans Under RTE Act, Orders Survey Of Denied Admissions

The Supreme Court today directed all States and Union Territories to issue notifications within four weeks identifying orphaned children as a “disadvantaged group” under Section 2(d) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court also directed them to conduct a survey to identify orphaned children who were denied admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act and ensure their immediate enrolment in neighbourhood schools.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate poulomi pavini shukla seeking the inclusion of orphaned children in official notifications under the RTE Act so that they are not excluded from admission under the 25% quota in private unaided schools.

The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted, “One of my prayers is that on parity, we ask all states to notify orphans as eligible for RTE, because, technically, all children are eligible, but because ‘orphans’ is not written, a lot of schools deny admission. There are lots of media reports and studies which show that orphans are denied admission simply because the word ‘orphan’ is not included. So if there is a state notification, it will help these children.” She added, “The problem is that because the word ‘orphan’ is not written, a lot of schools don’t interpret the word orphan. There’s nobody to fight for admission for orphans. Orphanage guardians are not interested in going over the extra step, telling the school that, ‘Oh, they are also included — all children means orphans’.”

She submitted that four state governments have already recognized this and rectified it, and said, “We are only asking for parity. And it is a simple government notification. It is not even a Cabinet decision. It is not a legislative decision. The Act itself empowers the state to make this simple government notification, and it was done by Gujarat first.”

She further submitted, “I would like to press one more prayer… to please direct Government of India to consider counting orphans in the Census, because the exercise for Census and its preparation is going on, and it might be they don’t have a tick box for orphans.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was present in the Court and, upon being called by Justice Nagarathna, assured the Court that he would personally look into the issue. He stated, “Orphans are our responsibility.”

The Court, in its order, recorded, “The learned petitioner submitted that although there may be several schemes envisaged by the Central and State Governments for the protection of and care of orphans, nevertheless the same being inadequate, the emphasis and focus in this petition is to ensure that orphaned children are not left in the lurch in this country.”

It was further recorded, “Delhi, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat… have already issued notification to include orphans within the definition of Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act. Other States shall also issue the same notification. Such exercise shall be completed within four weeks.”

The Court directed, “We therefore direct the respondent States to make a survey of the orphan children who have already been granted admission under the provisions of the Act, as well as a survey of the children who have been denied such right to education under the Act, and if so, for what reasons. The States shall submit an affidavit in that regard.”

The Bench added, “It is needless to observe that while this survey and data collection is being done, simultaneous effort shall also be made for ensuring that such deserving children, being orphans, are admitted in neighbourhood schools, in case it has not yet been done so, owing to the singular fact that such children are orphans and may not have had the opportunity of being admitted under the provisions of the Act.”

The Court granted four weeks’ time for compliance.

Cause Title: Poulomi Pavini Shukla v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 503/2018)