Free and Cumpulsary Education for all Disabled Children

Social Jurist vs. Union of India and others

Appellant: Social Jurist
Respondent:Union of India and others Citation:C.M.6736/2000 in C.W. 3956 of 2000, Decided on 29.08.2000
Court: In the High Court of Gauhati
Judges: HKK Singh and B Lamare

This is a case in which Saikhom Ramo Singh was convicted of murder by the Trial Court without adequate evidence.

Facts

Sholey, was a 14 years old girl having 60% orthopedic disability with both her lower limbs paralyzed. Her father was a rag-picker and lived in a shantytown in the northern region of New Delhi.Sholey completed Grade IV with 81.7% marks from the NLF Public School, Ghaziabad in the year 2000; during this time she lived in a hostel run by a local NGO. However, she had to leave the hostel when she turned 14 as per the rules of the organization.

Thereafter she took the only option available to her and shifted to her parents home. With the assistance of a Social worker of the area, she approached the local MCD school for admission into Grade V.

The Headmistress turned down her request saying that she was overage for that grade.
The Headmistress did not relent even after she was informed that Sholey was a disabled girl and as a consequence entitled to the benefit of the Persons with Disabilities Act, which categorically provides for free and compulsory education to all children with disabilities till the age of 18. The attention of the Headmistress was also drawn to a letter dated 18.03.2000 in which the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed all principals not to refuse admission to any child in the new academic session beginning April 2000. But the Headmistress was adamant on her decision.

A petition was then filed in the High Court. It was argued that Section 16 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 prescribed a minimum age of 5 years for admission in Grade I, but did not specify any maximum age for admission. Such a limit was also not provided by any other legislation.

Further, it was urged that Sholey being a disabled child had the fundamental right to have access to free education in a conducive environment till she attained the age of 18 as guaranteed to her under Articles 21 and 45 of the Constitution of India. And according to Section 26 of the Persons with Disabilities Act it was the legal duty of the Government to provide free educational facilities till the age of 18 to disabled children.

Observations of the Court

After examining the arguments, the Court directed the counsel for the MCD to give instructions about this issue by the next date of hearing. On 10.08.2000, the Headmistress of the MCD School along with some other staff members reached Sholey's residence and asked her to come to school and get admission. The next day Sholey was admitted in the school.

In view the fact that Sholey gained admission in the school, the High Court dismissed of the petition on 29.08.2000.

Rukam Pal Singh and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan

Filed Under: Sections 26 & 29 of the Persons with Disabilities Act
Appellant: Rukam Pal Singh and Ors
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Citation: RLW 2004 (4) Raj 2515
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench)
Judges: Anil Dev Singh

Facts

This petition was filed by Rukam Pal Singh and others, pointing out that the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act had not been complied with. They sought directions to implement the same.

Observations of the Court

The Court held that keeping in view the object and purpose of the Act, the State and other authorities had to ensure that every child with a disability had access to free education in an appropriate environment till he/she reached the age of eighteen. Further, the State would have to endeavor to promote the integration of students with disabilities in regular schools and to set up special schools for those who need special education with disabilities living in any part of the country.

It was noted that proper schools need to be set up in Rajasthan and teachers need to be trained and appointed to render special education to children with disabilities. With the above directions, the Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was posted for another date for monitoring the compliance of the order. The State was directed to report in three months.

Sections Referred:

  • Sections 26 & 29 of the Persons with Disabilities Act

Top