A “watered-down” and delayed First Information Report (FIR) against a Muzaffarnagar school teacher, shown on video showering communal remarks on her seven-year-old Muslim student and goading his classmates to thrash him, raised questions in the Supreme Court about religious discrimination and quality of education in Uttar Pradesh.
“The manner in which the incident has happened should shock the conscience of the State,” Justice A.S. Oka, heading a Division Bench, addressed the Uttar Pradesh government on Monday.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, for the State, said the “communal angle was blown out of proportion”.
“Something happened…” he began.
‘This is very serious’
“Not just ‘something’. This is very serious. The transcript of the video is there. If a teacher tells her students to hit another student because he belongs to a certain community, what is the quality and sensitivity of the education being given,” Justice Oka asked Mr. Nataraj.
Justice Oka pointed out that the FIR registered after a “long delay” by the Uttar Pradesh Police had ignored statements made by the child’s father about objectionable remarks made by the teacher, Tripti Tyagi.
‘Promoting religious enmity’
Advocate Shadan Farasat, for activist-petitioner Tushar Gandhi, said the case was a “classic” one under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, Ms. Tyagi, who was not arrested, was accused merely of causing hurt and insulting to “provoke breach of peace”.
The court ordered the State to nominate a senior IPS officer to take charge and examine if the teacher had to be booked for promoting religious enmity and child abuse.
The Bench said it wanted to know when exactly the chargesheet would be filed and how the State planned to protect witnesses, almost entirely children, in the case.
“We want to know everything… The Right to Education Act mandates sensitive and quality education for children… What kind of quality education is being given here? Is this how students are taught? Is the child continuing in the same school? If the school is unauthorised, how are such schools allowed to run?” Justice Oka addressed Mr. Nataraj.
The court said the State of Uttar Pradesh should take responsibility for the education of the child.
‘Appoint child counsellor’
Justice Oka directed the appointment of a senior and expert child counsellor to reach out, not only to the student in question, but also to his classmates, who were forced to hurt him.
The court said the incident was “very serious” and was in direct violation of Article 21A (the fundamental right of a child to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution, the Right to Education Act and even the Uttar Pradesh Rules which tasks the local authorities to ensure that children do not face discrimination in classrooms.
Uttar Pradesh attacked the petitioner, Mr. Gandhi, for using the tag that he was the “great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi” in all his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions.
But Justice Oka said the court was concerned about the issue highlighted in the PIL petitions and not the person behind it.
“In fact, in a case like this, the State should not be concerned about the locus standi of the petitioner. It should be more concerned about its own failure to put the criminal law in motion and the violation of the fundamental rights of the victims and their right to education… Even the Uttar Pradesh (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education) Rules of 2011 has been violated,” the Supreme Court recorded in its order.
Next hearing on Oct. 30
The court impleaded the State’s Education Secretary. It listed the case next on October 30.
The court directed the State to place on record measures taken by it to ensure better education and student counselling facilities.
Mr. Gandhi had urged the court to formulate guidelines for the preventive and remedial measures within school systems in relation to violence committed against children, including students belonging to religious minorities.
“Corporal punishment has become rampant in the Indian education system. The appalling and ghastly episode is preceded by a series of instances of violence against students belonging to marginalised communities,” the petition has said.
The plea said violence in schools had an insidious effect even on students who witnessed it, creating an atmosphere of fear, anxiety, intolerance and polarisation.
