People's Democracy

MODEL RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL, 2006

An Outrageous ‘Act’ of UPA Govt

Vijender Sharma

THE Congress-led UPA government at the centre has gone back on its commitment of providing free and compulsory education to all children between the age group of 6 to 14 years. It has now refused to enact a central legislation in accordance with Article 21-A of the Constitution and the entire responsibility of implementing this Constitutional mandate has been left to the states.

Article 21-A was incorporated in the Constitution in December 2002 through 86th Constitutional Amendment, which made free and compulsory education a fundamental right. According to this Article 21-A (Right to Education), the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” A follow up central legislation was necessitated in order to implement it and the then NDA government brought three drafts of “Free and Compulsory Education Bill” between July 2003 and January 2004. All the drafts were strongly criticised and rejected for being anti-child, anti-education and for containing many discriminatory provisions.

After coming to power in May 2004, the UPA government reconstituted the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). With much fanfare in August 2004, the CABE constituted seven committees to deal with various aspects relating to education including on “Free and Compulsory Education Bill and other issues related to Elementary Education.” This committee, chaired by the union minister, Kapil Sibal, proposed to the CABE the fourth draft of the Bill in June 2005 that was also strongly criticised and not accepted by the CABE itself. The government then came up with a fifth draft of Right to Education Bill in August 2005 with several changes and new clauses, which had more loopholes.

THREAT TO THE STATE GOVTS

While the provisions of the fifth draft of the Bill were still being debated and several amendments were being proposed, the prime minister set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to look into the feasibility of its implementation. Without making the report of the GoM public, the UPA government, in May this year, expressed its intent of giving up the Bill altogether citing the reason of lack of funds. However it has now come out with a sixth draft “Model Right to Education Bill, 2006” and asked the states to adopt the Bill in toto threatening that otherwise the central government would reduce the 75:25 ratio of expenditure on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to a 50:50 ratio. Moreover, in the proposed Model Bill 2006, several crucial and important clauses of the fifth draft Bill have not been included and several new clauses have been added which have made the Model Bill 2006 outrageous and against the spirit of free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years.

Except a few provisions like neighbourhood school, prohibition of screening procedure, school management committee, certification of completion of elementary education and prohibition of physical punishment, other provisions in the Model Bill 2006 are a further dilution of the Right to Education (RTE) Bill 2005 and do not fulfill the objective for which the Constitution itself was amended. The Model Bill 2006 legalises the commercialisation of education, continues child labour and perpetuates exploitation of students/parents by the managements of private schools. The government’s approach of diluting this right is apparent in this and the earlier draft Bills.

FREE & COMPULSORY EDUCATION

“Free Education”, as defined in Section 2(p) of the Model Bill 2006, means “freedom for the child and her parent/guardian from liability to: (i) pay any fee or charges to the school where the child/ward is studying, or to an examining body or any other external body providing any service through the school (ii) incur such other expenses, as may be prescribed, which are likely to prevent the child from participating in and completing elementary education.” But there is no commitment to supply free textbooks, stationery, uniforms, mid-day meals, and other steps to retain the child in the school.

Further, the “Compulsory Education”, as defined in Section 2(j), means “an obligation on the State to take all necessary steps in terms of this Act to ensure that: (i) every child of the age of six years is enrolled in a school, participates in it, and completes elementary education (ii) every child over six years, but less than 14 years, who was not enrolled in a school at the commencement of this Act, is enrolled in a school, participates in it, and completes elementary education.” This obligation of the State has become redundant by various provisions in the Model Bill 2006 itself.

A HOAX OF “CHILD’S RIGHT” 

There is nothing like “ child’s right” in this entire provision. On the other hand, ways and means to deny admission to child are writ large. The proviso of the Section 3(1) of RTE Bill 2005 had provided the right for an “appropriate alternative environment” for those children who suffer from “severe or profound disability”. This Section has been diluted in the Model Bill 2006 by adding that such right will be available only till the child “attains the age of eighteen.” Thus the Model Bill 2006 is insensitive to the needs of the children above eighteen years of age and suffering from “severe or profound disability”. What kind of “appropriate alternative environment” would be has not been specified. 

Another loophole has been created by including a proviso in this Section that “appropriate alternative environment” will also be provided to those children who cannot attend neighbourhood schools due to “nature of occupation of her parents.” By including this phrase, the government has given a freehand to the appropriate authority running the school to deny admission to any child under the garb of “nature of occupation” of her parents and may try to make inequitable arrangement for their education. Explanation appended to this Section makes it clear that neighbourhood school shall be determined on the basis of the proof of residence of the child. It is a clear attempt to keep crores of children out of the purview of this legislation, because destitute children and those belonging to migrant workers and families cannot give proof of their residence. 

The Section 3(2) of RTE Bill 2005 had provided that a non-enrolled child in the age group of 7-9 years should be admitted to an age appropriate grade in a neighbourhood school “within one year”. Further the Section 3(3) had provided that a child in the age group of 9-14 years will also have a right to be “provided special programmes” so that she is enrolled in the age appropriate grade as early as possible, but in any case “within three years” from the commencement of this Act. However, in the Model Bill 2006 the words “within one year” and “within three years” have been replaced by “within such period as may be prescribed” which has diluted the compulsory timeframe. As per Section 6 of the Model Bill 2006, the states are free to prescribe “such period” which may extend to several years, thus making a mockery of free and compulsory education.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE

Firstly, the words, “general responsibility” used in Section 5 are inappropriate, as these do not create justiceable right in favour of a child. It is required to be replaced by the words, “mandatory obligations”. While the central government has given up its Constitutional responsibility of enacting a central legislation for implementing the provisions of Article 21-A on free and compulsory education, it has bound the state governments, through the Model Bill 2006, to ensure that “the first charge on its revenues, next only to law and order, shall be that of matters related to free and compulsory elementary education.” (New Section 5(1) added to the Model Bill 2006). It should be noted that already it is the states that have been spending a lion’s share of expenditure on education in the country.

The Section 5(i) of RTE Bill 2005 had provided that the State shall “ensure the availability of a neighbourhood school for every child within a period of three years from commencement of this Act;” and that “in case of non-availability of a neighbourhood school, the State shall provide free transportation arrangements to the nearest school or provide free residential schools/ facilities.” This Section has been changed drastically and presented as Section 5(2) of the Model Bill 2006. In this Section, the words “within three years” have been replaced by “within such period as may be prescribed” and the provision for free transportation or free residential school has been replaced by “such alternate arrangements for the education of affected children as may be required.” The NDA government had in the earlier draft Bills defined “such alternate arrangements” which would only ensure shabby and discriminatory treatment to children belonging to the weaker sections of the society –– the farmers, the agriculture workers and the working class. Such not meant for equitable and quality education but for showing on papers that elementary education had been ensured.

Another Section 5(v) of RTE Bill 2005 which put the responsibility of the State 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” has been deleted in the Model Bill 2006 altogether. The state governments can now wash their hands off from bringing a child to the school if any of these barriers prevent her/him in coming to the school. In order to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children in the relevant age group, the centre and states have to solve the problems arising due to these barriers. But with the deletion of this Section, the barriers can prevent children from coming to school and the central and state governments can get away with this.

The Section 7 of both the RTE Bill 2005 and the Model Bill 2006 provides for pre-school education for the children between the age group of 3-6 years. This age group is improvement on earlier drafts. But in the sentence that the appropriate government shall “endeavour to” provide facilities for pre-school education in State and fully-aided schools do not create a right and does not amount to mandatory provision. Therefore, the words “endeavour to” should be deleted so as to make this provision mandatory.