[Non-payment of Fees] HC expounds: Not allowing a student to take exams, especially Board Exams, would be an infringement of Rights of a child akin to Right to Life,

 

The Delhi High Court expounded that the right to education under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right; necessary for the growth of the child and the society.

Justice Mini Pushkarna further stated that a child could not be prohibited from attending school or taking exams due to unpaid fees because the Indian Constitution protects the right to education. 

 

HC Bench taking into consideration the facts of the case concluded that if the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school (private unaided school) in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner had filed a writ petition alleging that their child's name had been removed from the school's rolls due to non-payment of fees, even though the child was in Class 10th. They had requested the court to direct the school to reinstate their child and allow them to sit for the upcoming CBSE Board Exams. 

 

The petitioner said they had paid all the school fees until January 2021. Still, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they could not do so regularly because of their father's financial losses. The school had sent emails suggesting removing the child's name from the rolls, and the father had made a representation to the Directorate of Education, requesting the school to allow their child to attend classes. However, the school still removed the child's name from the rolls. Subsequently, the father approached the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, which issued interim directions allowing the child to appear for half-yearly exams. Although the school had later permitted the child to attend classes and appear for exams, their name had been struck off again, preventing them from attending or taking the Class 10th Practical Board Examination.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioners stated that the DOE had previously sent a letter dated to the school, instructing them to remove the names of all students who had been struck off and to allow them to continue their studies and sit for examinations. Therefore, the petitioners believed that the DOE was backing their case and that they should not be prohibited from attending school or taking exams.

 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The advocate representing the school opposed the petition and presented a chart of outstanding fees owed by the petitioner and his sister, totaling Rs.3,14,000/-. He argued that this amount was significant and could fund the salaries of four teachers. He further pointed out that the school could only provide education if students did not regularly pay their fees. Respondent had filed a writ petition due to orders issued by the DCPCR and a pending suit for recovery against the petitioner's father for unpaid fees. Respondent also referred to Rule 35 of DSER, 1973, which allowed the Head of the school to strike off a student's name from the rolls for non-payment of fees and other dues. He relied on a Division Bench judgment which confirmed that Rule 35 did not affect the operation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act and that the petitioner was free to seek admission in a Government school if unable to pay fees at a private unaided school.

Observations of the Court:'

HC Bench stated that,"A child cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or barred from taking examinations in the middle of an academic session on the ground of non-payment of fees. Education is the foundation, which shapes the future of a child and which in turn shapes the future of society in general. Therefore, not allowing a student to take examinations, especially the Board Examinations, would be an infringement of the rights of a child akin to the Right to Life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court has expanded the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and education is certainly one of the important rights which would be encompassed under the right to life. In furtherance of the same, Article 21A of the Constitution of India provides for the Right to Education, wherein the State has been ordained to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years".

 

HC Bench further added that "A child’s future cannot be allowed to be spoiled and blemished by barring him/ her from taking examinations, especially at such a crucial juncture. In the context of Indian Society, Class 10th and Class 12th Board Examinations are vitally important and critical, having decisive repercussions and bearing on the future of a student".

"At the same time, a school which is run as a private unaided school cannot be forced to continue with a child who is unable to pay fees, having taken admission in the general quota and not under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) or Disadvantaged Group (DG) quota. The constitutionality and validity of Rule 35 of DSER, 1973, which authorizes the Head of the school to strike off the name of a student from the rolls of the school on account of non-payment of fees, has not been struck down by any Court of law", Bench added.

 

The High Court emphasized it was necessary to balance a child's right to education and the rights of the school under the DSER, 1973.

Verdict of the Court:

If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session. The academic year of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be wasted since the current academic session is almost at its end. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is currently in Class 10th, for which registration with the CBSE for appearing in the Class 10th Board Examination has already taken place.

 

Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot be directed to take admission in a new school, when the current academic session has almost ended and the Board Examinations are around the corner. Not allowing the petitioner to take up the Board Examinations would put the petitioner at a great hardship and the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to take up the examination. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is deemed expedient that the prayers as made in the present writ petition are allowed and the petitioner child is permitted to take the Class 10th Board Examinations.

However, in order to balance the equities, it is considered imperative that the petitioner pays some amount towards the fees payable to the school. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since it has been expressed on behalf of the father of the petitioner that the family is undergoing financial constraints, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the school within a period of four weeks from today on account of the dues payable to the school towards the fees.

Case Title: Prabhnoor through Father Karamjeet Singh Vardi v The Indian School & Anr.

 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 584/2023

Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Advocates for Petitioner: Ms. Malka Asad and Ms. Sonal Singh

Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Sanya and Ms. Utkarsha

 

 Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)
 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .