SC pulls up NCPCR for ‘indifferent’ implemention of 25% EWS quota

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to what it said was indifference shown by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in implementing its judgment seeking enforcement of a 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools and asked the chairperson of the statutory body to be present at the next hearing.

A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, “NCPCR being a statutory authority has a big role to play. Whoever heads the NCPCR must be sensitised about how much hope and trust is placed on its shoulders. How can they act so indifferent?”

The court was monitoring the implementation of its January 13 direction which mandated strict enforcement of the provision under section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This provision requires private schools to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood to the extent of at least 25% of the class strength.

The judgment noted that while the NCPCR has a standard operating procedure (SOP), these guidelines are not enforceable. It tasked the NCPCR and the Centre to consider formulating subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations, prescribing the method and manner by which the children of weaker and disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighbourhood schools. “Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object of Article 21A (right to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution of India and the statutory policy under section 12(1)(c) would be a dead letter,” the court said.

On Tuesday, additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati representing the NCPCR and Centre, presented a short compliance affidavit by NCPCR director V Ramanadha Reddy. In the response, Reddy said pursuant to the judgment, the commission wrote a letter to the Principal Secretaries or Secretaries (School Education) of ail states and union territories to inform them about the rules and regulations regarding implementation of section 12(1)(c).

In this regard, it stated that 9 states and UTs are yet to respond on this information while the remaining have taken steps to implement the provision.

“NCPCR is a regulatory body under the RTE Act. It is for them to make the purpose and object of the statute contemplated under section 12 of the Act a reality,” the court said.

Not happy with the NCPCR’s approach of gathering responses from the states and UTs, the bench observed, “You have to see that every neighbourhood school implements this concept.”

The court asked the NCPCR chairperson to be present at the next hearing, clarifying that there is nothing to fear, as it is not a contempt proceeding. The bench said that it intends to remind the authority of the enormity of the task entrusted on its shoulders by the judgment.