School Punishment Kills Student

It has been reported that a girl in Delhi died after being punished in the municipal school she attended. Her name was Shanno, and she was eleven years old. Apparently, her teacher made her sit in a position imitating a chicken for two hours in the sun and piled bricks on her back. The girl is reported to have died from a lack of oxygen although the details are not clear.

Much could be said about the teacher’s lack of all good sense and humanity but words would probably do a poor job of describing it. To treat a child in such a manner especially considering that temperatures in Delhi are well over 40 degrees centigrade would require extraordinary cruelty.

The media, in its coverage, seems to have focussed on the dearth of laws to protect a child in such a situation and has spoken of the Delhi High Court and the NCPCC taking a stand against corporal punishment in schools.

It isn’t entirely clear why that should be especially relevant in a case such as this. The Indian Penal Code doesn’t have any shortage of provisions to deal with harming other persons be they children or adults: causing hurt, causing grievous hurt, assault, murder and culpable homicide, among others.

And while it is certainly not a bad idea to have some sui generis legislation in place banning the corporal punishment of children both within and outside schools, it is entirely ridiculous to imply that the absence of such legislation in any way bars awarding punishment to those guilty of assaulting a child.

Even leaving criminal law aside, erring teachers and institutions could always be sued under tort law. The principle of vicarious liability, among other things, would ensure that schools which had such teachers could also be pursued through legal channels.

True, children are often assaulted by school teachers. True, there exists no law which specifically deals with banning corporal punishment. It does not, however, automatically follow that there are no remedies available to children and their parents when teachers act in such an unconscionable manner and assault their students.

Another Incident of Ragging

Every once in a while, the news of a student dying because of ragging hits headlines. Usually, it’s followed by a few debates on the telly after which everyone but those involved in and affected by the issue forget all about it. Until the next time it happens.

On March 16, 2009, the issue came up before the Supreme Court following the death of Aman Kachroo, a student of Dr Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Aman was ragged following which he died. It isn’t entirely clear what exactly it was that caused him to die: he suffered a perforated eardrum and internal injuries but there are queries about whether the doctor who attended to him was negligent in treating him.

In addition to this, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam also spoke of the death of a girl student of Agriculture and Engineering College, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh after allegedly being forced to dance obscenely.

The Supreme Court did not take the issue lightly and Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly issued a show cause notice to the Principal and Registrar of the Dr Rajendra Prasad Medical College asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for not complying with the court’s directions to prevent ragging.

The notice issued by the Supreme Court also required the Principal and Registrar of the Medical College to state what action was taken after the ragging incident was brought to their notice. In addition to this, the court asked the Medical Council of India to inquire into the allegations of medical negligence against the doctor who treated Aman, and the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh to file separate affidavits stating what they have done to comply with the court’s earlier directions and what action has been taken against the two institutions as well as against the students who did the ragging.

Justice Arijit Pasayat said in no uncertain terms, “It appears that the concern shown by this court has not been taken seriously by the authorities. Prima facie it is contempt of this court. The directions issued by this court on May 16, 2007 and February 11, 2009 on the basis of the R K Raghavan Committee Report to end the menace have not been complied with. Time has come for cutting off financial age to there institutions which are not complying with the directions.”

Perhaps the possibility of this happening i.e. financial support being cut will actually get institutions to do what they can to stop ragging. The University Grants Commission has also said that it will finalise stringent rules on the issue by the first week of April 2009.

The intervention of the Supreme Court and the measures of the UGC come too late for the students who have alreay lost their lives but, with any luck, they will help others in the future.

References:

The Times of India, The Hindu, IndlawIndiaJournal

High Court enables Students to take Exam

The Calcutta High Court has come to the aid of seven students whose colleges didn’t stand up for them according to a report in The Telegraph. The students had paid late fees along with exam fees to register to take an exam only to be told that the University had scrapped the late fees system even though no official circular had been issued saying so. The Court allowed the students to take the exam and fined their colleges ten thousand INR for failing to get them hall tickets.

The Right to Education Bill, 2005

The Times of India reports that the law ministry has asked the HRD ministry to look into certain “crucial” aspects of the Right to Education Bill before it introduces the Bill so that it does not create large amounts of litigation once it becomes law.


THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL, 2005

The Right to Education Bill, 2005 is designed to put into effect the right to free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years’.

Constitutional Basis

The Preamble to the Constitution resolves to secure to all citizens of India JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

Article 45 of Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution requires the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to age fourteen but there are a number of children out of school particularly from the disadvantaged groups.

Further, Article 21A of the Constitution has made free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right.

In addition to this, Article 51A (k) says that it is a fundamental duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child/ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

Child’s Right to Free and Compulsory Education of Equitable Quality

Under this Bill, every child who has attained the age of 6 years shall have the right to participate in full time elementary education and to complete it although a child who, due to his severe or profound disability, or disadvantage, or nature of occupation of his parents, cannot be provided elementary education in a neighbourhood school, shall have the right to be provided education in an appropriate alternative environment as may be prescribed.

(It isn’t quite clear why the occupation of a child’s parents should bar his admission in a school.)

No child shall be held back in any grade or expelled from a school until he completes elementary education, except through an Order of the School Management Committee (SMC). This can only be done in the case of a delinquent child for whom all other corrective measures have been exhausted, and only after such child and his parents/guardians have been afforded an opportunity of being heard. An SMC passing such an Order must bring such Order to the notice of the Appropriate Government or local authority as the case may be, which will then give directions regarding other neighbourhood schools to which the expelled child shall be admitted for purposes of his further education

General Responsibility of the State

The State has responsibilities both towards children who have been enrolled in schools and those who have not been so enrolled. It is the responsibility of the State:
(i) To ensure the availability of a neighbourhood school for every child within a period of three years from commencement of this Act or free transportation arrangements to the nearest school or provide free residential schools/ facilities,
(ii) To ensure that every child is provided free education and parents/guardians who choose to admit their children to the nonfree quota in a school shall not have any claim on the State for providing free education to their children,
(iii) To institute and implement a mechanism for regular monitoring of enrolment, participation and attainment status of every child, and taking corrective steps wherever necessary, so that every child completes elementary education, and to make information in this regard available in the public domain, including on an on-line basis,
(iv) To ensure that children in schools receive education (a) of equitable quality, and (b) conforming to values enshrined in the Constitution, and,
(v) To ensure that economic social, cultural, linguistic, gender, administrative, locational, disability or other barriers do not prevent children from participating in, and completing elementary education.

As far as non-enrolled children are concerned, the appropriate government is required to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are either enrolled in a neighbourhood school or in special programmes in a neighbourhood school, if available, and failing that, in another school to enable them to be admitted to an age appropriate grade in a neighbourhood school as early as possible
.
The appropriate government is also required to endeavour to provide facilities for pre-school education in State and fully-aided schools for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years, if such facilities are not already being provided, through Integrated Child Development Services or other government programmes, in proximity to such schools.

If a young person has, for whatever reason, been unable to complete elementary education by the age of fourteen years but is continuing his education in a school at that age, he shall continue to be provided free education in such school till he completes elementary education or attains the age of eighteen years, whichever is earlier.

Responsibility of the Government

The primary responsibility for the provision of free and compulsory education is of the concerned Local Authority and State Government. However, the Central Government has a concurrent responsibility: it is responsible for providing financial assistance to State Governments, taking action through appropriate bodies to develop a national curriculum framework, and to develop and enforce standards for training and qualification of teachers for elementary education in a participatory and consultative manner. The Central Government is also responsible for providing technical resource support to the state governments. It is required to monitor the progress of implementation of various interventions, schemes and programmes for achieving the objectives of this Act, and taking appropriate steps in case of default. It is also required to take such other steps as the President may, by Order, specify.

Schools and Teachers

State Schools are required to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all admitted children. Aided schools which are not fully aided are required to provide such education to at least such proportion of their admitted children as its annual recurring aid bears to its annual recurring expenses subject to a minimum of 25 per cent. The Bill makes provision for how many children each category of school is required to provide free and compulsory elementary education.

Children or their family cannot be subjected to any screening procedure by a school while deciding about admission to the school at the elementary stage, nor shall the family be required to make any payment in the nature of capitation fee.

Children shall be admitted to schools as far as possible at the commencement of the academic year but this is flexible.

Every teacher has a duty to regularly attend school for its full duration, transact and complete the curriculum, report every case of non-attendance to the parent or guardian concerned in the first instance, regularly assess the learning level of each child, and to provide such supplementary instruction as may be needed by the child, regularly apprise every parent/guardian and the School Management Committee about the progress of learning development of his child/ward studying in the school, and to perform such other functions as the appropriate government or the appointing authority may specify. Default by a teacher in the performance of a stipulated duty amounts to professional misconduct, and such teacher shall be liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions this Act and/or the disciplinary rules applicable. The SMC/Local Authority is required to redress teachers’ grievances to the extent that they fall within its purview, and/or to forward them to the appropriate authority for obtaining redressal in the event that such grievances do not fall within its purview.

Content and Process of Education

The curriculum and evaluation procedures must conform to the values enshrined in the Constitution. All schools must function in a child friendly and child-centred manner, and must allow the child who is capable of forming his own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, and allow the views of the child to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Schools must build on the child’s knowledge, environment and cultural identity, particularly linguistic, and develop the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, and use the child’s mother tongue as the medium of instruction as far as possible, at least during the first five years of the elementary stage. Education should rely on activity, discovery, exploration, understanding and problem-solving, be free of fear, trauma and anxiety to the child, and evaluation should be conducted in a continuous and comprehensive manner such that it tests the child’s understanding and ability to apply knowledge rather than rote learning.

No child shall be required to appear at a public examination during the elementary stage except, if at all, at the completion of such stage. Every child who completes elementary education shall be awarded a certificate to that effect by the examining body holding public examination, or, in case no public examination is held, by the school where he completes it.

Schools may carry out standardised, non-threatening assessments of learning levels of children to enable corrective action, at such regular intervals as may be prescribed by the appropriate government.

No child shall be awarded physical punishment in any form in a school. Corporal punishment inflicted by a teacher shall amount to professional misconduct, and such teacher shall be liable to be punished in accordance with this Act and/or the disciplinary rules applicable.

Monitoring of Implementation of the Act

The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Commission for Elementary Education to continuously monitor implementation of this Act, recommend corrective measures wherever necessary, and to exercise powers and perform other functions assigned to it under this Act.

The National Commission for Elementary Education, shall consist of a Chairperson, who shall be an eminent person with proven record of service in the field of education; one member each having expertise in the fields of elementary education, development of disadvantaged groups, child development/child rights, finance, and law; and a Member-Secretary having experience/expertise in educational management.

The Central Government shall, after due appropriation made by Parliament, by law in this behalf, pay to the Commission by way of grants such sums of money as it may think fit to enable the Commission to discharge its functions.

Participation in Elementary Education

No person shall prevent a child from participating in elementary education and no person shall employ or otherwise engage a child in a manner that renders his a working child.

A child shall be admitted to Grade 1 only if he has attained the age of five years and ten months before the beginning of the academic year. Ordinarily the birth certificate and, in its absence, a declaration by the parent or guardian shall be treated as prima facie proof of the age of a child, unless the admitting authority has reason to disbelieve it. In case it is disbelieved, the admitting authority shall determine the child’s age after making an enquiry in the prescribed manner.

It is the responsibility of every parent/guardian to enrol his child or ward, who has attained the age of 6 years and above in a school, and to facilitate his completion of elementary education. If a parent/guardian persistently defaults in doing this, the SMC may direct such parent/guardian to perform compulsory community service by way of child care in the school, in such manner as may be prescribed.

The management of schools which charge a capitation fee or conduct any screening procedure for admission of children may be fined.

Copyright in a Student’s Work

That the copyright in a student’s assignments belongs to him isn’t disputed; he has the right to control how or if his work is published.

An IIT student — that’s the Illinois Institute of Technology — Roman Kofman, doesn’t seem to have been able to convince one of his professors who has posted some of his work online of this and isn’t sure of what to do next:

“Should I serve my professor with a formal “cease and desist”? Should I go to legal counsel with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice? The DMCA notice would make IIT (as the internet service provider for the site) liable if the content was not removed. Surely, this would produce results. I doubt I would actually sue the school, but who knows?”

Mr Kofman says, “Winning a case of willful copyright infringement would net me a nice payout to help me with my student loans.” I’ve not heard of a student in India having a similar problem although if he were to have such a problem, his rights would be similar. I’m not sure if, practically speaking, his remedies would be the same.

In the Indian scenario, would a student actually want to send a legal notice to a professor who controlled his grades? If he tried to file a suit, how far would he get? Would it take too much time and effort to try to enforce his rights?  Would it be worth it if he did win: I don’t see him getting too much in the way of damages. And what would the fall out be? Would either the school or the professor refrain from holding it against him? Would it diminish his chances of future employability if he was thought of as being litigious?

technews.iit.edu/index.php?id=973

INDIAN & NATIONAL and Educational Institutions

The All India Council of Technical Education which regulates engineering and technical education in India had prohibited private institutions from using the words ‘Indian’ and ‘National’ in their names in 2002. Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust which had established ‘The Indian Engineering College’ in 1984 has challenged this prohibition before a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and J M Panchal.
The Madras High Court had earlier rejected the Trust’s plea. So far, the Supreme Court has stayed the AICTE’s notification till further orders.
Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/SC_Is_Indian_copyright_of_govt_institutes/articleshow/2777749.cms