SC will not entertain PIL seeking common syllabus, curriculum for children across India
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to consider a PIL against certain sections of the Right to Education Act-2009 on the grounds that it was “arbitrary and irrational” and called for the introduction of a common syllabus and curriculum for children across the country.
A bench of judges L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai asked the petitioner’s lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay to go to the Supreme Court in this regard. The case was dismissed as withdrawn. The bank clarified that it was not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
‘Why don’t you go to the Supreme Court? You have come after 12 years of change,” the bank said. Senior lawyer Ranjit Kumar appeared before the applicant. The advocacy said Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act are the biggest barriers to explaining the Constitution and that the lack of a common native language curriculum leads to fueling and perpetuating ignorance .
The PIL said it is the Union’s duty to establish a common education system, but it has failed to meet this necessary obligation because it simply adopted the already existing National Curriculum Framework (NCF) of 2005.
“Center has inserted S. 1(4) and 1(5) to deprive educational excellence from madrasas, Vedic pathshalas and educational institutions that provide religious instruction. “The applicant argues that S.1(4) and 1(5) are not only in conflict with Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A, but also in conflict with Articles 38, 39 and 46 and the preamble”, the plea, filed by attorney Ashwani Kumar Dubie said.
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 instruct the Center to implement a common syllabus and curriculum for the students of the I-VIII standard the country’, was the plea.
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.
