Findings of Case # 5 of 2013 of MCPCR (Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights )
(S. Shyamcharan Vs Shishu Nistha Niketan)
Full Report

Imphal, 23rd December 2013 *

Before the Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights
Complaint Case No. 5 of 2013 MCPCR.

Shri S. Shyamcharan Singh, father of S. Lingjelthoiba, Singjamei Chingamathak Yumnam Leikai Ngakraba Leirak, Imphal.
…………Complainant/Applicant

- versus -

1. Shri Lairenjam Suranjan Singh, Chairman Shishu Nistha Niketan, Mayaikoibi, Imphal.
2. Shrimati Noarem Amrita Devi, Director, Shishu Nistha Niketan, Mayaikoibi, Imphal.
3. Shrimati Nongthombam Elizabeth Devi, Principal, Shishu Nistha Niketan, Mayaikoibi, Imphal.
Respondents / Opp. party.

P R E S E N T

Shri A. Nabachandra Singh, Chairperson
Shri K. Maharabi Singh, Member
Shri Ch. Nabachandra Singh, Member
Shrimati Y. Nolini Devi, Member
Shrimati Th. Jaya Devi, Member
Mr. Lamminlian Vaiphei, Member
Haseen Chishti, Member

For the Complainant : Shri S. Shyamcharan Singh in person and Mrs. Puspa, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shri Mr. Th. Modhu Singh, Advocate
Date of application : 19/10/2013
Date of hearing : 18/12/2013
Date of finding : 23/12/2013

Finding of the Commission
23-12-2013

1. The complainant is said to be the father of Shri S. Lingjelthoiba, who is admittedly a student studying in class – IV – B in the educational institution called the Shishu Nistha Niketan, Mayaikoibi, Imphal. The substance of the complaint is “for making a probe into the illegalities committed by the authority of the school in the matters arising out of transportation of school children and for taking up further necessary proceedings against the school for its failure to work in the academic interest of the students. The complainant has alleged violation of child rights and sought to invoke the power of this Commission under Section 13 (1) (j) (i) and (ii) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Under the provisions the Commission shall enquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivation and violation of child rights and non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children. Hence, the complaint is admitted and issued notice to the Opp. Parties. The Opp. Parties appeared by their Ld. Counsel and put in their written statement. They were heard at length on 2/12/13 and on 18/12/2013. Now, this Commission is to dispose of the present complaint.

2. The complainant said that his son Shri S. Lingjelthoiba is reading in the Shishu Nistha Niketan in Class – IV – B. It is also said that his son goes to the school by private van service for a long time. Recently, the complainants have been receiving various letters from the school authorities and the last one is No. 2-11/SNN-EST/117 dated 24/09/2014 which was signed by the Principal, the Opp. Party No. 3. The grievance of the complainant is projected to the said letter. In substance the letter stated that the school Management Committee in an emergency meeting has resolved not to grant re-admission to students who are not availing of the registered school transport vehicles for the academic session 2014-2015. It is further mentioned in the said letter that in case the parents intend to continue association with the school, they can do so only when they enroll their children and in addition they can do so by payment of a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and that too by the 5th of October, 2013 along with a written request. The complainant submits that the said letter dated 24/9/2013 is against the mandate of the Constitution of India under Articles 14 and 21-A. The complainant further submits that after receipt of the letter dated 24/9/2013, he along with some parents said to have approached the school authorities requesting to recall the said letter but, it is stated that the authority refused to grant their request and he has no alternative but to file the present complaint.

3. The three opposite parties jointly filed a detailed, lengthy and exhaustive written objection containing 15 paragraphs running into 17 pages but, in substance stated that the school has not done any act violating the rights as laid down in the Right to Education Act of the students and sought to justify the impugned latter dated 24/9/2013 to be valid, reasonable and innocent. Therefore, this Commission is to examine the contention of both the parties. Examined the application and the written objection and the documents accompanying their pleadings. The complainant filed 6 (six) documents including the impugned letter dated 24/9/2013.

The Opp. parties filed the following documents :-
a) True copy of the circular of CBSE Circular No. 28/2004 dated 26/6/2004.
b) Another circular No. 61/2012 dated 8/6/2012; and
c) True copy of the letter dated submitted by Th. Ricky to the Principal.

4. This Commission has gone through the letter dated 24/9/2013 carefully wherein the school has clearly mentioned that the Management Committee of the school has resolved not to grant readmission to students who are not availing of the registered school transport vehicles for the academic session 2013-2014. The stipulation in the letter is quite in a juxtaposition to Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which provides as under. “No Children admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education”.

The resolution of the Management Committee is so far as not to grant re-admission to students who are not availing of registered school transport vehicle in out and out in opposition to Sec. 16 of the Right to Education Act. There is no other condition, qualification or outlet for a school to evade the provisions of law enacted in Section 16 which starts with the word “NO” i.e. absolute. Further, the complainant submits that the letter has been sent by hand post of his son which after knowing the contents, the son was hit by mental harassment as the letter is a warning to oust him from the school. This is also prohibited in the absolute terms in Section 17 of the Act.

5. The another part of the letter in question is the resolution of the School Management Committee to allow children of the parents who intend to continue association with the school to avail of registered school transport facility with a fine of Rs. 1,500/- by the 5th October 2013, along with a written request. The Commission is puzzled to read the portion of the letter which amounted to charging capitation fee as defused in Section 2(b) of the Act Section 13 of the Act prohibits a school from charging any capitation fee, we are distressed to note that how can a school Management Committee of a reputed school can act in flagrant violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009. In this regard Shri Th. Modhu Singh Ld. Advocate for the Opp. Parties submitted that the letter can be compromised with the provisions of the Right to Education Act that the same has been resolved in tune with the letter and spirit of the CBSE circular regarding safety of the students in the school. Transport precaution to be observed by the school has also been pointed out. A letter written by one Ricky Singh addressed to the Principal mentioning irregular van service is also filed. The Opp. Parties sought to justify the letter dated 24/9/2013 by taking shelter to the said three documents.

6. The Commission appreciates the school for having concern about safe transportation of the students and for that purpose to have made arrangement of transport vehicles registered in the school. But a plain reading of the letter 24/9/2013 does not indicate the same is in tune with their view about safe transportation. Ms. Puspa, Advocate was also present in the Commission. She desired to be heard for the reason that her own child is a student in the school and she has narrated numerous instances of the school authorities to have practised discriminatory treatment to the students and the arrogant attitude of the Opp. Parties who kept themselves totally beyond the reach of the parents by being posted armed musclemen at the gate. The situation as she submitted is akin to a prison house where the parents have no access to the ways and modes of dealing their children by the school authorities.

The working of the school authorities was said to be not transparent and in opposition to the mandate of the law known as the Right to Education Act, 2009. This Commission wonders as why the parents have raised voices, against the working of the school where the children are reading on payment of fees. Whatever happened earlier be that as it may but the school should see that such allegations do not come up in future. The Commission felt that there are substantial elements of deprivation and violation of child rights and non implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children. A child cannot be ousted from the school by not granting re-admission in the school in any manner before completion of elementary school. To this extent the letter dated 24/9/2013 is contrary to the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and Section 31 of the Act comes into play and the Commission is in duty bound to monitor child’s right to education and enforce their rights against the lawbreakers on the pains of infliction of the consequences under the Act.

The Commission finds that the decision of the Management Committee to levy fines of Rs. 1,500/- from the parents, is another ignorance of the provisions of law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The majesty of law must be the paramount consideration and must be upheld in order to save the children whose rights are and may be jeopardized by the authorities and others concerned. The Commission has no hesitation to hold that refusal of the reading students to re-admission and further to levy fine from the parents, of a sum of Rs. 1,500/- are violation of child rights that are guaranteed under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the same deserves to be recalled and invalidated.

Under Section 13 (j) (iii) of the Commission of the protection of child Right Act, 2005, the Commission is duty bound to take up issues arising out of violation of child rights with the appropriate authorities for suitable actions, but as this is the first case of infraction of child rights by the school authorities and the dispute can be settled by the observance of the mandates of law by the opposite parties, this Commission feels it appropriate to give a chance to the opposite parties to withdraw and recall the letter dated 24/9/2013 in so far about refusal of re-admission and charging fine of Rs. 1,500/- within a period of 8 days from the date of passing of this finding and to file a return to this Commission regarding compliance of this finding, so that the Commission may not be necessary to take the matter further to the authorities recommending against the school in order to maintain the rights of the children which remained eclipsed by the impugned letter dated 24/9/2013.

Before parting with this case the Commission would like to observe that well being of children is a universal aspiration. Article 21 A is inserted by the constitution 86th Amendment Act 2002 providing for free and Compulsory Education of all children in the age group 6 to 14 years as a Fundamental right. The Parliament of India has passed the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It is the bounden duty of all the schools to implement the Act in letters and spirit. In this connection, the school authorities are to sensitize the school teachers and all who are to deal with the students, a fair knowledge of the Act so that parents may not be compelled to approach the Commission to redress the grievances of their children which is caused solely by the school authorities who appears to be ignorant with to provision of law providing for protection and development of children of which the Right to Education expresses one aspect.

The complaint is disposed of. The opposite parties will positively file the compliance report returnable by 30/12/2013 which shall be submitted to the Registry of the Commission.

Sd/-
Announced
A. Nabachandra Singh
Chairperson

Members
1. Shri K. Maharabi Singh, Member - Sd/-
2. Shri Ch. Nabachandra Singh, Member - Sd/-
3. Shrimati Y. Nolini Devi, Member - Sd/-
4. Shrimati Th. Jaya Devi, Member - Sd/-
5. Mr. Lamminlian Vaiphei, Member - Sd/-
6. Haseen Chishti, Member - Sd/-