The Delhi Supreme Court on Tuesday asked for a response from the Center to a plea against certain provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, allegedly being arbitrary and irrational and seeking the introduction of a common curriculum and curriculum for children in the whole country.
A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh notified the Union Ministries of Education, Law and Justice and Home Affairs of the petition and referred the matter to further consideration on March 30.
The PIL said that the existence of Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act and the lack of a common curriculum in the native language leads to fueling and perpetuating ignorance and delaying its attainment. of fundamental duties.
The petitioner, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, said it is the Union’s duty to establish a common education system, but it has failed to fulfill this necessary obligation, as it simply follows the pre-existing National Curriculum Framework (NCF) of 2005, which is very old .
The plea challenged the provisions of the RTE law that exclude madrasas, vedic pathshalas and educational institutions that provide religious knowledge within their scope.
“The harm being done to children is extreme because instead of implementing a common education system for all children up to 14 years old… institutions that provide religious education.
“The applicant submits that Sections 1(4) and 1(5) are not only inconsistent with Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A but also Articles 38, 39 and 46 and the preamble”, according to the plea.
Article 1, fourth paragraph, of the RTE Act provides Subject to the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, the provisions of this Act apply to the granting of children’s rights to free and compulsory education.
Section 1(5) of the law states, “Nothing in this law shall apply to Madrasas, Vedic Pathsalas and educational establishments primarily providing religious education.”
The plea said that the prevailing system does not provide equal opportunities for all children, as the syllabus and curriculum differ for each stratum of society.
“It is necessary to state that the purposeful and harmonious structure of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A with Articles 38, 39, 46 confirms that education is a fundamental right of every child and that the state does not may discriminate. †
“A child’s right should not only be limited to free education, but should be extended to receive an equal quality education without discrimination based on the socio-economic and cultural background of the child. Therefore, the court may declare Sections 1(4) and 1(5) arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 and order the Center to establish a common syllabus and curriculum for the students of I -VIII standard to be implemented in the country,” the plea read.
The petition said a common minimum education program for children under 14 would achieve the code of common culture, eliminate inequalities and deplete discriminatory values in human relations.