New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to pair and merge 105
government-run primary schools.
“Are you not trying to enforce rights under the Right to Education Act? If it is a statutory right, then it cannot be camouflaged as a writ petition under Article 32 (dealing with the enforcement of fundamental rights)! Let the Allahabad High Court decide the matter,” a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih remarked at the very outset.
Sensing the disinclination of the Justice Datta-led Bench to entertain the writ petition filed directly before the apex court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Sanjay Singh, sought permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court.
Ultimately, the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.
Sanjay Singh’s writ petition contended that the decision to pair and merge 105 government-run primary schools, formalised through a government order on June 16 and a consequential list on June 24, was “arbitrary, unconstitutional, and legally impermissible”.
It added that the state government’s action has already “adversely impacted the educational access of numerous children across the state of Uttar Pradesh”.
According to the plea, the merger of schools with low enrolment into other institutions has forced children to travel longer distances without any provision for transportation or alternative facilities. This move violated the right to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A and reinforced through the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), it contended.
Referring to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011, the petition pointed out that primary schools must be located “within one kilometre of a child’s residence, particularly in habitations with a population of not less than 300 persons”.
“The state government cannot discharge its duty merely by showing that another school exists somewhere in the vicinity. If the school is beyond 1 km, it falls afoul of the Rule 4(1)(a) mandate unless the exceptions under Rule 4(2) are met -- which they are not,” the plea stated.
It further stated that any policy or executive action compelling children to travel unreasonable distances to attend school -- such as school closures, arbitrary mergers, or restructuring that increases the distance of schools from children's homes -- is prima facie unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of Article 21A and the RTE Act, 2009.
The petition cited the Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka case, where the Supreme Court held that the right to education flows from the right to life and dignity. This position was reaffirmed in Unnikrishnan, J.P. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which declared free education up to age 14 a fundamental right, subject thereafter to the government’s economic capacity.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
